Pickled Heretic, you gave an example for a figure of speech that to your claim exists only in the English language or or at least conceaved by Geoffrey Chaucer(14century-ish) and later adopted by other languages, you've also noted that you've been told that by your lecturer, to whom i believe you refered as a "she". As an example you gave the phrase "this is no small task"; this figure of speech is around for quite some time now refered to as Litote, which is - as far as I know - a greek term. here is a little excerpt from the new testement - Acts 20:7..12 "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him." And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted." Methinks that the new testement, though new, predates Chaucer. I'll assume that I haven't said anything new here and would like to hear your take on this, if it is new to you then i wonder what your lecturer might have to say about it. A small portion of my lecturers were pretty dumb and I've discovered that I needed to verify what some of them are saying before actually repeat their words out loud, I hope that she meant something else rather then what i've understood from you. On a different note, presuming that there was a miracle happening there; I *think* thats history's first recorded death out of boredom. No doubt a few more took place while reading this post, my sincere sympathy.
I would highly question that the any part of the bible would represent history or is a credible source to prove that any events in history did happen. Also why are you guys not having this conversation in private.
the new testament is created based mainly on works written by Clement of Alexandria (or TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS according to wikipedia) as a "history report" take note that the stories clement wrote down had been passing over at least 2 generations with mouth to mouth by then... born ~150 probably in Athens -- wrote 180-200 in Alexandria -- died between 211 and 215 in Jerusalem he wrote the TEXTS of the new testament as separate books (not all of them, but like 60 to 70%) the actual "new testament" was then composed from these texts by The Christian church body (this organisation was created by a late Roman ruler as to put leadership over the Christians so that he could control the Christians trough this leadership, his name escapes me) and they bundled, censored, rewrote, made up new things, removed a lot of things said specificity by Jesus (the whole text devoted to Jesus called "Jesus" was removed from Clements works while most of the apostles still had there texts) up all the texts into the book we know as the new testament all in all you could say that the new testament is made approximately in the year 400 (give or take a 100) by the same people that put Jesus on the cross, and they wrote it because even when they killed Jesus, the cult did not die out as expected... and as the Romans knew when you cant beat something, you must make them join you
no, only the roman name i used wikipedia to check up on the validity of my memory as i was typing how i remembered it, i learned this when i followed a history course from a professor that is pretty famous in Belgium, and it was about the bible (i dont look up a topic you guys are talking about and start naming random facts just too look smart, i know stuff and check there validity before posting because i dont want to look like a fool quoting some out dated or badly formulated information) the professor his name is rick torfs or something like that, and often comes on the television apparently (i never watch tv) the general purpose of the new testament was to make Jesus look like a "demi-god that was awesome and powerfull" while the origin of Christianity held a more "do as i, because i am just another human like you and i can do it" kind of approach to Jesus his deeds the professor also gave a reason why the Roman emperor wanted this, but i don't remember, its already 3 or more years ago i got this course... i must say though that it was REALLY interesting seeing a very historical view on how christianity and the bible formed the world and how the world formed the bible
I would assume that the presence of litotes is not in the original translation and was added by an English translator. If this was a King James translation it would have indeed came well after Chaucer's time. The King James translation is not known for its 100% precision and accuracy, but rather for its ease of readability, so including a literary element such as litotes wouldn't be unheard of. As far as I know, litotes is pretty rare in other languages, and all of those instances of it occurring started popping up recently due to the proliferation of English (It may have started happening in the UK's imperial era). The wikipedia article doesn't really refute anything I said, other than stating that litotes started occurring before Chaucer's time, which is probably true - Chaucer probably can be the one credited for popularizing it instead of inventing it.
by and large, translations, especially the bible, are matters of opinion. Translating things word for word is different than translating meanings. Some words in one language may even mean multiple things depending upon how you say the word. Words mean exactly what you think they mean, and nothing if you don't know their meaning.
Indeed the Bible has be translated and translated so many times by some many people from so many different cultures I'm surprised it isn't just a mess of contradictory nonsense. Oh. Wait...
Oh please. Are we like, 12 now? This thread isn't about bashing religion. Go read a Dawkins book or something. If you don't know anything about litotes or literature in general you should GTFO.
wtf you talking about? I'm simply stating that just because you read the bible and see some form of something in english, that doesn't mean that the person that wrote it wrote that. When you translate it, you write what you think it means. It's very hard to translate something exactly when some words or phrases in hebrew may not translate into english in a way that people would understand. The bible being translated by many people over a thousand years and in many different ways, is a horrible example to say that "because it is used in the bible, it must have been used before X was born". If you think that is bashing religion, you got other problems. Only a fool would take the bible word for word as the exact intended meaning.
Because what Hendar said isn't religion bashing? That really offended me; not once in the Bible is there a contradiction about itself.
Lets look at the latin version, since thats the only thing close enough to the "original" that I can speak myself. The important part is: et consolati sunt non minime And the comforting was not small. No idea about the greek or hebrew versions. What ever point you are trying to prove, I don't really care, the romans did it before, just like they did nearly everything else awesome, except the internet.
no-one is bashing religion here, we are debating about the origin of the bible why did you even bring up that subject?
This isn't about the origin of the bible, either. This is about the presence of litotes in non-English literature prior to the 12th century.
