Posts by fulltimestudent

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

fulltimestudent

CalebInFloroda: If we could find out why so many Christians are intent on making the religious lessons and mythos of my people read as literal history, I believe we can also solve most of the world's problems. I kinda wish they had chosen some other culture's mythology to try to prove true because we Jews get blamed for their curious exegesis.

Smile! I also often wonder what makes Christians (and maybe XChristians-grin) so obsessive about preaching. My pet hate is some obsessed, fanatical evangelist preacher with a portable sound system, turned up to peak volume, shouting in a city street, saying the single sentence, that we all need to repent, in a dozen different ways. No-one else is permitted to do this, but for some reason ordinary laws are suspended for this rat-baggery.

But, Caleb, if people like Vermes, another Jewish scholar, are correct in seeing Jesus as always and in all-ways quintessentially Jewish, and if Jesus originated the preaching work (there's a proposition to discuss) then can Judaism escape from being (at least partly) the origin of the Christian model. I wonder what it would've been like living next door to a fanatical Essene (if the Essenes really were part of the Qmran group). There are some scholars who say that the Galilean hills were full of (hyperbole) itinerant preachers like Jesus

And then there's their predecessors, the prophets of old. Do you not imagine them as still talking, even when buried in wet sloppy cement?

Just thinking aloud.

20

Social changes- 50% of British youth think they may be a 'little' bit gay

by fulltimestudent in

this is an amazing social change, and bring humans closer to reality.. from the independent - a british newpaper.

a survey reports:.

read the full story at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/yougov-poll-homosexuality-half-young-people-10458032.html.

fulltimestudent

This is an amazing social change, and bring humans closer to reality.

From The Independent - a British newpaper. A survey reports:

Read the full story at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/yougov-poll-homosexuality-half-young-people-10458032.html

Half of all young people in Britain are at least a little bit gay, survey finds
Sunday 16 August 2015
Almost a quarter of British adults and half of 18-to-24-year-olds report having at least some homosexual feelings
DAVID TRAYNER

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

fulltimestudent

Its curious, that in a nation that poses as the most advanced society on earth, over 50% of its citizens believe first, that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and second, that they exist on the earth because that God first made Adam and Eve.*

We are only talking about here, because as XJWs we once believed it all. It's strange, because we have no trouble recognising the mythical nature of Greek beliefs. For example, take the Greek myth telling of the birth of the goddess Athena:

Athena springs out of the head of Zeus fully armed, 560-550 B.C. Museum of Olympia, Greece

As pictured, Hephastaeus, split Zeus's head open with an axe, thus providing a birth canal for the goddess, who had grown inside Zeus. Fantasy? sure! And we recognise it as such, But do not some Biblical stories also read as fantasy? Why did we accept them without much questioning?

And in ancient Greece, many accepted Athena. How they treated the story of her birth is not always clear. Perhaps some thinking people saw it as an allegory- as a means to explain her qualities. The Wikipedia entry describes Athena thus, she:

"is the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, mathematics, strength, war strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill in ancient Greek religion and mythology. Minerva is the Roman goddess identified with Athena.

Athena is portrayed as a shrewd companion of heroes and is the patron goddess of heroic endeavor. She is the virgin patroness of Athens. The Athenians founded the Parthenon on the Acropolis of her namesake city, Athens (Athena Parthenos), in her honor.
Veneration of Athena was so persistent that archaic myths about her were recast to adapt to cultural changes. In her role as a protector of the city (polis), many people throughout the Greek world worshiped Athena as Athena Polias (Ἀθηνᾶ Πολιάς "Athena of the city"). While the city of Athens and the goddess Athena bear the same name (Athena the goddess, Athenai the city), it is not known which of the two words is derived from the other."

And, those believing Greeks probably scorned the biblical stories as myth.

So why did we suspend belief and accept the biblical myths as true? What does it tell us about our own minds? I leave that as a personal question, for those who are deciding whether they should now reject bible myths.

* That is according to a discussion on the subject of belief published on Slate: I should be noted that the percentage of such believers is continually dropping over decades.

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

fulltimestudent

CalebInFloroda: It's an interesting hypothesis, but it isn't accepted etymological theory.
The Hebrew word for "rib" in Gemesis 2 actually isn't "rib" at all. The word is actually "side" as in hillside or the side of a building.
I subscribe to the theory that since the word is so often used to refer to "walls" that the expression is describing Eve's creation in terms of making a building. A "side" or "wall" was taken from Adam, so to speak, to create the "building" of Eve. Semitic concepts of humans often pictured them as vessels and even arks (boxes or chests). The same word appears in reference to the walls of Noah's ark, the sides of the ark of the covenant, and the walls of various chambers and rooms in the First Temple.

Your right, of course, in all you say. The BAR article notes the conventional meaning and then quotes Zevit's* re-interpretation:

Of the 40 appearances of tsela‘ in the Bible, the Adam and Eve story is the only place where it is translated as “rib.” Usually it means the side of something. Zevit explains the nuance of this word:

(and the BAR then apparently quotes Zevit directly)

This Hebrew word occurs some 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, where it refers to the side of a building or of an altar or ark (Exodus 25:12; 26:20, 26; 1 Kings 6:34), a side-chamber (1 Kings 6:8; Ezekiel 41:6), or a branch of a mountain (2 Samuel 16:13). In each of these instances, it refers to something off-center, lateral to a main structure. The only place where tsela‘ might be construed as referring to a rib that branches off from the spinal cord is in Genesis 2:21–22.

According to Zevit, “rib” is the wrong translation for tsela‘ in the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. Zevit believes that tsela‘ should be translated as “a non-specific, general term,” such as one of Adam’s lateral limbs, in the Adam and Eve story. Thus, it refers to “limbs lateral to the vertical axis of an erect human body: hands, feet, or, in the case of males, the penis.”

Which of these lateral limbs lacks a bone? Human males do not have a penis bone, but many mammals do. Zevit concludes that in the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, the woman was created from the man’sbaculum to explain why this appendage does not have a bone.

So yes, Zevit's interpretation conflicts with the contemporary view of what is 'tradition.' But can his interpretation be ruled out? I'll let you argue that, other than commenting on the swags of information that passes me every day (in only the academic sphere) me every day, I really don't care if Eve, was the result of an union between Adam and a Orangutan.

A further search indicates that the BAR may be quoting from a recent book written by Zevit, " What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?" (Yale University Press, 2013). http://www.yalebooks.com/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300178692

* For anyone who may be curious enough to ask who Zevit is, this is Yale Press's biographical note on Ziony Zevit: Ziony Zevit is Distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature and Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles. He is widely recognized for his publications in Hebrew epigraphy, biblical studies, and ancient Israelite religion.

2

Worldly People

by Introvert 2 in

anyone thought of this before ??

hahaha .

worldly people got no reason worldly people got no reason worldly people got no reason to live

fulltimestudent

Yup... in JW lore, only Jehovah's witnesses are full human.. grimace!

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

fulltimestudent

We all know the bible story (as its translated into English) that Eve was made from Adam's rib. Now Bible scholar, Ziony Zevit, Distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature and Northwest Semitic Languages at American Jewish University in Bel-Air, California has written In the 'Biblical Archeological Review' that the Hebrew word that is traditionally translated as “rib” which is 'istsela‘ has been wrongly translated.

Zevit says, "It was first translated as “rib” in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the mid-third century B.C.E. However, a more careful reading of the Hebrew word for “rib” in the Adam and Eve story suggests that Eve was created from another, very different, part of Adam’s anatomy—his os baculum (penis bone)."

Now we all know that human males do not have a 'penis bone,' and Zevit argues that the point of the story was (at least, in part) that, since humans do have a istsela, but many animals do, the story explained how humans lost their penis bone.

Women reading this, will once again recognise that the bible account is a typical story based on male arrogance, since males cannot exist without a woman's body to form them in the womb.

Full story at:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/the-adam-and-eve-story-eve-came-from-where/?mqsc=E3807311&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=E5B817

37

Remember the two elderly sisters?

by John Aquila in

about a month ago i posted what had happened to two elderly sisters who were reprimanded by a couple of elders for crying because the jw broadcasting was going to be stopped at the kingdom hall and it was up to each publisher to learn how to use the internet.

if you recall the sisters got together with my mom and talked about it and it resulted in all of them declining to make meals for the pioneers.

here is the link.

fulltimestudent

When elites become arrogant and rude, lower level people will always find a subtle way to express their inner feelings.

My father told a great story of his WW2 army days. One particular private was always in trouble and assigned to kitchen duty in the Officer's mess, which usually entailed (for him) drying the dishes. To express his disgust, he used to wipe his penis over every plate he dried.

Worse is going to come to those arrogant elders, who have forgotten mercy - they are (haha) going to die, go to the grave and never ever get a ressurection, because there isn't one.

20

Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime or a terrible act of war ?

by truthseeker100 in

i believe that the bombings shortened the war in the pacific and probably saved countless lives.

i am not an expert on this subject but given the times it was probably the correct and moral thing to do.. what say you all?.

fulltimestudent

Apologies to Saintbertholdt:

Being in a hurry when I posted, I fast scanned the conversation but failed to pick up your mention of the Russian entry to the Pacific war. Stalin may have been a bastard, but the Russian people finally got their sh*t together (after the German successes) and put together a creditable fighting force that not only pushed the Germans back but pushed Japan to the brink also.

The Russian occupation of all of Sakhalin and all of the Kuril islands still stands, a fact that raises Japanese ire. Their occupation gives Russia complete control of the Sea of Okhtosk with its rich fisheries.

20

Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime or a terrible act of war ?

by truthseeker100 in

i believe that the bombings shortened the war in the pacific and probably saved countless lives.

i am not an expert on this subject but given the times it was probably the correct and moral thing to do.. what say you all?.

fulltimestudent

The moral defense for the terror unleashed by the nuclear bombs is that countless lives (of Allied soldiers) would be saved if an invasion of the Japanese home Islands became unneccessary.

Unfortunately, that defense is nullified, by something else happening, that the American government had full knowledge of.

What did they know?

They knew that the long requested Russian declaration of war on Japan was about to happen. This suggests that there were other reasons for using the atomic bombs.

They could be:

1. The American high command wanted to see what the bomb would do when used on a civilian population.

2. They wanted to demonstrate the bomb to the Russians, sort of, "Look what we've got?" This argument is dependent on being able to show that the USA was already re-considering their relationship with the Soviet Union. It can be argued that the success of Russia's final drive on Germany concerned the USA.

But back to the very short Russian-Japanese war.

The first nuclear bomb was dropped on August 8, but the planning for the Russian-Japanese war had commenced 3 months before, and shortly after the defeat of Germany. Train load after trainload of Military gear had been sent to Siberia and the huge Russian bases that were prepared for the Invasion. The USA knew something of those preparations, at the very least.

On August 8, the Russians declared war on Japan, and invaded Japanese held Manchuria and the islands to the north of Japan in three great pincer movements. In little more than a week Russian forces had wiped out the occupying Japanese Army in Northern China, Korea and the Japanese section of Sakhalin Island.

They also were preparing to invade the large northern Japanese Island of Hokkaido.

Faced with a choice of surrendering to the United States or the Soviet Union, the Japanese elite chose the soft touch and were rewarded for their choice.

If you want to know more I suggest this Foreign Policy overview as a starter:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

1

Boys kidnapped for sexual purposes in Elizabethan England

by fulltimestudent in

it sounds unbelievable to us today, that young boys could be kidnapped to work as young actors in elizabethan england, and that queen elizabeth i can be accused of being complicit in these crimes.

but that's the claim made in a university of oxford media release announcing the publication of a book entitled, shakespeare in company by dr bart van es.. i quote the release in full:.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130619_1.html exploitation of elizabethan child actors revealedarts19 jun 13 dr bart van esresearch by an oxford university academic has lifted the lid on the systematic exploitation and abuse of child actors in the time of shakespeare.young boys were snatched on their way to school by 'child catchers' who roamed the streets of london in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.they were then forced to perform on the stage, often in seedy theatres for the titillation of predominantly male audiences.even queen elizabeth i was implicated, signing warrants allowing theatre bosses to capture children for their companies.the material came to light during research by dr bart van es for his new book,shakespeare in company, and has implications for our reading of some of the bard's most important plays, including hamlet.dr van es, a lecturer in english and fellow of st catherine's college, studied original elizabethan documents that show the queen herself signed commissions allowing theatres to kidnap children and force them to perform under threat of whipping.

fulltimestudent

It sounds unbelievable to us today, that young boys could be kidnapped to work as young actors in Elizabethan England, and that Queen Elizabeth I can be accused of being complicit in these crimes. But that's the claim made in a University of Oxford media release announcing the publication of a book entitled, Shakespeare in Company by Dr Bart van Es.

I quote the release in full:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130619_1.html
Exploitation of Elizabethan child actors revealed
Arts
19 Jun 13

Dr Bart van Es
Research by an Oxford University academic has lifted the lid on the systematic exploitation and abuse of child actors in the time of Shakespeare.
Young boys were snatched on their way to school by 'child catchers' who roamed the streets of London in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
They were then forced to perform on the stage, often in seedy theatres for the titillation of predominantly male audiences.
Even Queen Elizabeth I was implicated, signing warrants allowing theatre bosses to capture children for their companies.
The material came to light during research by Dr Bart van Es for his new book,Shakespeare in Company, and has implications for our reading of some of the Bard's most important plays, including Hamlet.
Dr van Es, a lecturer in English and Fellow of St Catherine's College, studied original Elizabethan documents that show the Queen herself signed commissions allowing theatres to kidnap children and force them to perform under threat of whipping.
'In at least one case, a father tried desperately to recover a child who had been snatched and taken to the Blackfriars playhouse,' said Dr van Es.
According to court depositions, a group of theatre men 'did haul, pull, drag and carry away' 13-year-old Thomas Clifton on his way to school.
Dr van Es added: 'When his father attempted a rescue by turning up at the playhouse he was contemptuously dismissed and told that if his son did not learn his lines he would be whipped.'
Using the Queen's commissions, playhouse owners boasted they had 'authority sufficient so to take any nobleman's son in the land'.
'Technically these warrants were designed to allow the Master of the Children to "take up" boys for service in the Chapel Royal,' said Dr van Es.
'But the reality was very different. It was well known that the Children of the Chapel Royal was really an acting company and the Queen did nothing to intervene.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The exploitation of these boys was often explicitly sexual
Dr Bart van Es
Dr van Es also uncovered a seedier side to the practice, with performances by children’s troupes often taking place in dimly-lit theatres featuring predominantly male clienteles - in contrast to mainstream public theatres with more diverse audiences.
He said: 'The exploitation of these boys was often explicitly sexual. The playwright Thomas Middleton, for example, described one children's company as a "nest of boys able to ravish a man".
'Kept children had always been a feature of Tudor entertainment. There is an amazing set of letters in which Henry VIII makes requests for a boy in Cardinal Wolsey's choir that he is "desirous to have".
'It was partly financial pressures that allowed this practice to become commercial.'
According to Dr van Es, Christopher Marlowe's Dido, Queen of Carthage is an example of a play written for a children's company that makes for disturbing reading in light of his research.
He said: 'Looking at it now, its opening scene edges close to paedophilia. It features a boy named Ganymede "dandled" on the knee of the god Jupiter, who calls him a "female, wanton boy" and "darling of my thoughts".
'Ganymede is asked by Jupiter to indulge in "play", which is clearly sexual. The boy is even offered some of Jupiter's wife's jewellery if he will "be his love".
'The fact that all of this was performed in semi-darkness by captive children makes a real difference.'
The research has implications for our reading of some of Shakespeare’s works, including Hamlet. The play was written in 1600, the year Thomas Clifton was kidnapped and the year children's companies were revived after a 10-year ban.
Dr van Es said: 'When Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, children's theatre was big news and he made this central to the plot.
'In the play, the actors have come to visit Hamlet in Denmark because competition from the boy players has driven them from London.
'They even perform a scene that parodies Dido, Queen of Carthage, which Marlowe originally wrote for the boys of Blackfriars.'
According to Dr van Es, Hamlet is one of several plays Shakespeare wrote in opposition to the theatre companies that used the labour of captive children.
He said: 'There were children in Shakespeare's company - playing the roles of women - but these were apprentices rather than schoolboys who had been captured.
‘Shakespeare actually comes out of this rather well.’
Shakespeare in Company by Dr Bart van Es is available now, published by Oxford University Press.