Dinosaurs Are Alive

Pages

AuthorTopic: Dinosaurs Are Alive
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #50
Whales and fish don't have much of a neck to speak of, and while they can surface (and possibly jump), I can't think of a movement they are capable of that could be called "raising up himself".

And although the Bible is hardly scientific evidence, we were already talking about mythology.

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #51
Just returned from Royal Tyrell. Fascinating stuff really. And Biblical descriptions aren't necessarily scientific proof of anything.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #52
quote:
Originally written by Lowbacca:

Actually, if you read Matthew 12:40, In the King James Edition, (which i dont want to debate why its better than NIV and all the other ones, cuz they suck), Jesus refers to it as a "Whale".
I prefer the Greek, myself. The word that Matthew uses is κήτος (ketos), which Perseus defines as "any sea-monster or huge fish." I would look it up in the LSJ (the most authoritative Greek dictionary), but the LSJ seems not to want to work with my computer right now.

[ Monday, August 21, 2006 20:38: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #53
Weighing in on the fish vs whale argument, some definitions of the Greek ketos are
quote:
The Greek word (for which the Authorized Version translates as "whale" in Matt 12:40) is ketos , which the standard BAGD lexicon defines as "sea-monster", of which Mounce's lexicon defines as "sea-monster, great fish, or whale", and of which the Louw and Nida UBS lexicon defines as "big fish, huge fish."
from Tektonics.org

I am reading a definition that could fit either, or both, of the above claims (fish OR whale).

Perhaps the problem is applying modern biology to historic texts and expecting it to work. (for a better discussion on this point read the full article from the above URL).

I don't think it is pertinent to the point of the text nor does "whale or fish" do anything to advance/deny claims of (in)fallibility of the bible. SO, why are we arguing this point?

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7099
Profile #54
quote:
Originally written by Randomizer:

Jonah in the original Hebrew has big fish as the actual words (I remember from all those Yom Kippur services where it's read during the afternoon service in its entirety). I don't have a Hebrew Bible out to look up the other references. King James version and other translations tend to take liberties in order to make the texts more readable and accessable to their specific audiences. You need to go back to the original language sometimes to be sure about the exact wording.
Ah! I said i didnt want to debate this subject, for the simple fact that there are pages that i could write about how you are wrong. ugh, im not really6 in the mood to talk about it. but anyways, ill stick with Whale, instead of big fish

--------------------
I like everyone...I just like some people more than others!
Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #55
quote:
Ah! I said i didnt want to debate this subject, for the simple fact that there are pages that i could write about how you are wrong. ugh, im not really6 in the mood to talk about it. but anyways, ill stick with Whale, instead of big fish

I count at least 11 errors in spelling or grammar. No wonder there will be no debate, it wouldn't be intelligent anyway. And, in the end you would still be wrong.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Triad Mage
Member # 7
Profile Homepage #56
Besides, it doesn't matter what Jesus said - he wasn't there and could have added some neat embellishments to get his point across better.

--------------------
"At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander
====
Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy
Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet
====
You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse!
Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #57
Yeah, taking that as a literal discussion of a real animal kind of lances Jesus's credibility on account of he's talking about a giant scaly fish that never existed.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Lowbacca:

Actually, if you read Matthew 12:40, In the King James Edition, (which i dont want to debate why its better than NIV and all the other ones, cuz they suck), Jesus refers to it as a "Whale".
I prefer the Greek, myself. The word that Matthew uses is &#x03BA&#x03AE&#x03C4&#x03BF&#x03C2 (ketos), which Perseus defines as "any sea-monster or huge fish." I would look it up in the LSJ (the most authoritative Greek dictionary), but the LSJ seems not to want to work with my computer right now.

Also, the Amazing Captain Linguistics forgets his history: the science of anatomy being in its infancy and the science of taxonomy being centuries away, the full knowledge of the relationship between sharks, whales, dophins, and fish was not understood, and all fell under 'sea creatures'. As far as the original authors of either Testament could reasonably be concerned, there was no special way to signify whale, nor any need for such a way; it was simply a large fish. 'Whale' is an ovetranslation; it'd be like taking 'je porte les vetements' (I'm wearing clothes) and translating it as 'I'm wearing a red hat'.

Oh, and believing in the KJV wins you no points. It's inaccurate in various places, misleading in others, and as generally messy as any book whose every passage has been translated at least twice would be. It was also translated before the modern science of linguistics even existed; it's as much the product of 16th-century England as it is of 1st-century (or whateverth-century) Palestine.

[ Monday, August 21, 2006 14:23: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #58
quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

Also, the Amazing Captain Linguistics forgets his history: the science of anatomy being in its infancy and the science of taxonomy being centuries away, the full knowledge of the relationship between sharks, whales, dophins, and fish was not understood, and all fell under 'sea creatures'. As far as the original authors of either Testament could reasonably be concerned, there was no special way to signify whale, nor any need for such a way; it was simply a large fish. 'Whale' is an ovetranslation; it'd be like taking 'je porte les vetements' (I'm wearing clothes) and translating it as 'I'm wearing a red hat'.
His Pomposity fails to note that I didn't actually say that it was a whale (because I don't think that it is). I just quoted a definition.

Anyway, I did get the LSJ to work, and it gives the same definition. It also notes that the Odyssey uses it of seals (and at least one sea monster), and Aristotle uses it of cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises — the term actually derives from the Greek). Another author uses it of tuna.

The term really did mean "big sea-creature," as far as I can tell. Alec's point (that the Greeks didn't exactly have a great inventory of aquatic animals) is also worth noting here, but it can be overstated.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #59
Kel, I think you need to put semicolons at the end of your character references.

--------------------
Jonah was eaten by a whale. C'mon, VeggieTales said so!
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #60
There are two problems here. The first is that ancient languages didn't have as many words so they use the same one to mean different things. The other is that even when there is a detailed enough description so you can be sure what they are talking about after 2000 odd years the animal may not still be around to have a modern equivalent. There are several Biblical plants and animals that modern scientists can't locate with any certainty,
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7099
Profile #61
Um.., yeah. The 11 errors in my grammer and spelling matters not. I dont proofread, because im not being graded. If you can understand what im saying, whats the need? Also, my keyboard sucks, the keys stick and others dont read well when theyare typed. Especially the space bar. Also, dont talk about how much you know about the Greek Language. The Greek we know now is nothing like The Greek back then, and so what if Jesus wasnt there. He is GOD. And also, he refered to many stories previous to when he was born. And also, what i meant about the "translations", i didnt mean languages. I meant, NIV, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc. And out af all of them, the KJV is most accurate. They DO leave out things in the KJV. Such as part of the Tora, and the Apochrypha. I think i spelled everything right im not sure. And if i didnt im not sorry, cuz i dont know you guys, and everyone seems to be getting a little pompous, even myself., and this is EXACTLY the reason why i didnt want to debate abgout this. There is already almost a full page of us arguing. So, i suggest we stop, not because of the fact that i'm losing, lol, but because we are sorta getting nowhere, and it will take at least 2months for us to find common knowledge on everything. So yeah. Also, i have respect for evryone here, i respect everyones opinion and your intelligence. Actually, i enjoy debating, because i DONT know everything, and i like the points people bring up. It doesnt hurt to learn from others. Ok, im done now bubye

--------------------
I like everyone...I just like some people more than others!
Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #62
Paragraphs, nitwit.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 7099
Profile #63
quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

Paragraphs, nitwit.
Nitwit? Thats not nice. Haha. Youre funny. And i hadnt noticed how long it was, oohhh well.

YOu know, i AM trying to be nice, because alot of people are emo.

And i try try not to offend people. Oh gives a crap i give up. Lol.

Are these paragraphs better?

I hope so

Because...

If not,

I can be much worse

Only if you say so though.

ok im done now

bu

bye

--------------------
I like everyone...I just like some people more than others!
Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 8
Profile #64
quote:
Originally written by Lowbacca:

Nitwit? Thats not nice. Haha. Youre funny. And i hadnt noticed how long it was, oohhh well.

YOu know, i AM trying to be nice, because alot of people are emo.

And i try try not to offend people. Oh gives a crap i give up. Lol.

Are these paragraphs better?

I hope so

Because...

If not,

I can be much worse

Only if you say so though.

ok im done now

bu

bye

IMAGE(http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1221/emotcolbertwr0.gif)

--------------------
"Names is for tombstones, baby." -Mr. Big
Posts: 699 | Registered: Thursday, September 20 2001 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #65
I assume from the logic of Alec's argument that the 'Amazing Captain Linguistics' whom he is criticizing is not Kelandon but Lowbacca. He seems to be supporting the statement he quoted from Kelandon, not attacking it.

Either that or he is implicitly accusing Kelandon of undertranslation, as well as explicitly charging Lowbacca with overtranslation. But I don't think that charge would make sense, so I'll stick with the first interpretation.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #66
quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

Kel, I think you need to put semicolons at the end of your character references.
Now that you mention it... it shows up fine for me, but I gather that it doesn't for you? I'll do that.
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

I assume from the logic of Alec's argument that the 'Amazing Captain Linguistics' whom he is criticizing is not Kelandon but Lowbacca. He seems to be supporting the statement he quoted from Kelandon, not attacking it.
Oops. Habit, I suppose.

[ Monday, August 21, 2006 20:38: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #67
This topic is hilarious, if only for the verbal barrage the intellectuals throw at each other. :)

[ Monday, August 21, 2006 21:28: Message edited by: Drow ]

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #68
I was calling Kelandon the Amazing Captain Linguistics because I found it amusing that his first instinct was, as always, to translate something - anything - from Greek.

I wasn't doubting his translation at all; I'm certain it's spot-on. The implicit point I was getting at was that delving into a Greek dictionary to prove a 1st-century Hebrew townie isn't talking specifically about an animal that will not be identified until centuries after his time has something of a Rube Goldberg character to it.

'The Amazing Captain Linguistics forgets his history' was pointing out a far simpler way you could have gone about rebutting what you did - and as far as I'm concerned, a more useful one anyway. (Jesus not only wasn't referring to a whale, he couldn't have been referring to a whale - his language didn't have a word for it or even a concept of it.)

Kel kind of reminds me of Clamps from Futurama, only with classical languages instead of, you know, clamps. He's probably insulted, but then again, he's shown time and time again he sees absolutely nothing incongruous about using any excuse to break out the Greek or Latin - so I'm not going to lose any sleep from the fear I've done a man slander.

[ Monday, August 21, 2006 21:41: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #69
Considering that the immediate topic at hand was the meaning of a word in the New Testament, this was an odd occasion to mock Kelandon for providing translations from Greek. And your statement about the history of marine biology, while interesting and reasonably plausible, was completely unsupported. There's a fair chance, you know, that it's crap.

Lexicon entries, on the other hand, are authoritative enough that criticizing them is a game for specialists only. I try to appreciate that kind of thing. My corresponding vice is to be particularly irked by pretences to authoritative knowledge. Real authoritative knowledge is damn hard work.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Loyal Underling
Member # 13
Profile #70
quote:
Originally written by Lowbacca:

Also, dont talk about how much you know about the Greek Language. The Greek we know now is nothing like The Greek back then
I'm reasonably certain that Kelandon is better-versed in Classical/Ancient Greek than he is in modern-day Greek.

--------------------
[i]Great Potato[/i]
"Unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for if such is their meaning, I admit that I am eloquent." -- Socrates
Posts: 126 | Registered: Thursday, September 27 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 7099
Profile #71
Thats what I'm saying. There is so much nobody knows about Ancient Greek, its not even funny. Also, Personally, i dont follow the Lexicon. Yeah, its hard work, i agree, and the only people that should disagree with them, are people that are at least versed in such things.

"(Jesus not only wasn't referring to a whale, he couldn't have been referring to a whale - his language didn't have a word for it or even a concept of it.)" Qutoe by The Worst Man Ever

Lol, this doesnt make any sense, just think about it. If you read Jonah, and the quote from Jesus. The animal was created FOR this purpose of swallowing Jonah. Hence, it hadnt even been named by Adam. Therefor, Jesus had to come up with a name. Its like inventing your own word. Like "Stigglkeek". Thats my explanation of it anyways. Of course, you can disagree, its your God given right to.

Also, its not really that hard giving the Greek translation of something, just look it up, it takes like, a minute, then you sound like youre a professor. I've seen a 6 yr old do this. Lol, and no, im not trying to attack anyone. I'm not even looking at the names of the people part of the discussion, i dont even know who's saying what.

--------------------
I like everyone...I just like some people more than others!
Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #72
People here are either very patient, or rather cruel. But which?

[ Tuesday, August 22, 2006 07:06: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ]

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #73
What is known about ancient Greek languages is enough to make sense of them. I'd trust Kel on it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why he is using Greek either, really, except that it's closer to the original than English.

Lowbacca, the KJV is not the best translation. It's the first.

—Alorael, who is not very familiar with the New Testament. He is, however, passably familiar with the Old Testament, and he's pretty sure that Leviathan is exclusively OT content. What does Jesus have to do with whales or lack thereof?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #74
quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

'The Amazing Captain Linguistics forgets his history' was pointing out a far simpler way you could have gone about rebutting what you did - and as far as I'm concerned, a more useful one anyway. (Jesus not only wasn't referring to a whale, he couldn't have been referring to a whale - his language didn't have a word for it or even a concept of it.)
It seemed worthwhile to find out what the range of meanings of the term actually was. If we're talking about the meaning of a word, it seems very normal to look up the meaning in the most authoritative dictionary, because these meanings can be surprising. The Latin term mus refers to a rat or a mouse and makes no distinction, but it does not refer to, for example, a weasel. There was some sense that different words referred to different animals, although the distinctions didn't break down the way that they might now.

It is, as I said, far too easy to overstate the difference between the classical mind and the modern.
quote:
Originally written by Que vaya al otro lado:

On the other hand, I'm not sure why he is using Greek either, really, except that it's closer to the original than English.
Someone made a reference to Matthew 12:40. I can't speak to the Old Testament in the original, but I can talk about the New.
quote:
Originally written by Lowbacca:

Thats what I'm saying. There is so much nobody knows about Ancient Greek, its not even funny.
There's still a little that remains unknown, but it's strikingly little. If you want to talk about the evidence for Ancient Greek, I can actually talk about this with some knowledge, because it's one of my side interests; I don't just read the classical authors but like to know how we know what we know about them. There is enough information about this word to talk about it.
quote:
Also, Personally, i dont follow the Lexicon. Yeah, its hard work, i agree, and the only people that should disagree with them, are people that are at least versed in such things.
This doesn't make any sense. Did you just say that you disagree with the dictionary, but you think that only people who know a lot of Greek should disagree with the dictionary? Am I to assume then that you are completely fluent in Classical Greek?

quote:
The animal was created FOR this purpose of swallowing Jonah. Hence, it hadnt even been named by Adam. Therefor, Jesus had to come up with a name. Its like inventing your own word.
Jesus didn't invent this word. The New Testament is from roughly the first century. The word is first attested in the Odyssey, which predates it by about eight hundred years. Jesus used a word that was a Greek word by that point, not a made-up word.

quote:
Also, its not really that hard giving the Greek translation of something, just look it up, it takes like, a minute, then you sound like youre a professor.
You're flat-out wrong here. You can find a translation of something, often, but that is not the same as translating it yourself. And translating something yourself is more than just looking up dictionary entries for each of the words (which for Greek is in itself non-trivial). Translation is complex, especially from Greek to English.

[ Tuesday, August 22, 2006 08:51: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages