I'm not sure how you define major version - the two most used in my experience are the King James, the NIV, and the ESV; it might be a country thing - I'm from Australia. Out of those, the ESV has the past tense, the King James doesn't. In the absence of an expert in ancient Hebrew, I'd say that there's not enough information to comment definitively on the tenses, but that based on the translations (which were presumably done by experts) it's somewhat reasonable to consider that it may be a valid interpretation.
And the narrative works fine either way - the story is that man was alone; God brought all the existing animals before him, but none were suitable, so God custom-build him a suitable companion.
My post was commenting exactly on the difference between those two words - in fact, if Slashdot wasn't stuck in the pre-unicode past, it would have contained precisely those two words in Hebrew. Elohim transliterates as "god" - the generic term for deity. Yahweh is, for various historical reasons, rendered as LORD in the Biblical text, and is what we refer to when we use "God" as a proper noun in English. The two terms used in those accounts are "Elohim" and "Yahweh Elohim" - they're not two different words, as the OP stated, they're two different usages - title, and title plus name.
The book of Genesis covers a massive chunk of Hebrew history - from the creation of the world, the tower of Babel, Noah's ark and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph and his shenanigans in Egypt. It's the book that covers the single longest historical period in the Bible - around 2,000 years or so.
In the first version it was animals first and then mankind, in the second version it was man first, then animals. (And then woman.)
No, it wasn't. Chapter 2 verse 18 uses the past tense "the Lord God had formed". The sequence of events: Animals Created -> Man Created -> Animals Brought Before Man -> Woman Created is consistent with both accounts.
Well, you obviously can be that stupid. When I mention "lowercase g" it's fairly obvious I'm talking about the English word - after all, Hebrew didn't have the letter g either. The English words god (lowercase g; generic deity) and God (uppercase G, specifically the Christian/Hebrew deity) have different meanings. When commenting on transliterations regarding those words, specifying that you're referring to a particular variant is common sense.
Do you have any reference for that? Which word in the original implies simultaneity?
In regards to your second point - the word for "god" (lowercase g) is the same word in both chapters - . However, Genesis 1 uses the word alone, whereas Genesis 2 uses it in conjunction with the name of the god in question - . A comparison of transliterations might be "In the beginning, the god created the heavens and the earth" (Gen1) "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the god Yahweh made the earth and the heavens." (Gen2). They're both using the same word, just Genesis 2 is a little bit more explicit. The term for "god" in Hebrew was like a title. Referring to someone either by their title ("Yes, Officer, I do know I was speeding") or by their name ("Yes, John, I do know I was speeding"), or by the two in conjunction ("Yes, Officer John, I do know I was speeding") are all equally valid, and all refer to the same person.
Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously different accounts (they're both describing the same event, after all) but that doesn't necessarily mean they're contradictory.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't agree with the arguments for a literal interpretation of Genesis (few outside the US do), but I do believe in Biblical inerrancy.
No. In chapter one, male and female are created. It does not specify order, nor the period of time between one or the other, as it is an overview. In chapter two, which goes into detail, you get the specifics.
For reference, Genesis 1:27:
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2:8,18
Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Hard to see how the 9:1 ratio of lost packages could be such an anomaly though...
It's not the ratio - it's the fact that it's based on only 10 events. Just think - if one more non-branded package had gone through, the ratio would have halved. When would that next parcel have been lost? Would it have been on the 90th send, or the 180th? We don't know. If you were trying for statistical rigour, you'd want to repeat the experiment until you were satisfied that a few extra events on either side wouldn't have a significant event. Consider, if they'd had 90 branded lost, and 10 non-branded lost, the ratio would have made exactly the same as presented, but an extra event on either side would have had a far lower impact on the actual ratio.
The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery
Large samples? 1 non-branded and 9 branded articles went missing. That's not a huge number of cases to examine. The "3 days longer" statistic seems to be massively skewed by a single non-representative parcel that took 37 days later than its counterpart. And even if their statistics were correct, all they have demonstrated is that branded parcels took longer than unbranded - they should have also sent parcels with "God is great" on them, or some such if they wanted to demonstrate the nature of the bradning was decisive.
Well, reality doesn't, and that sort of overrules the EU's opinion on it. The EU might also think you have the right to own a pink elephant. Reality still won't care.
Let's see here. We have the EU defining a legal civil right. The corporate world says "oh noez! We can't do that! Our business model is BASED around violating that civil right!
Not quite. The EU defines a legal right that is totally unimplementable. The "right to be forgotten" translates to "the right to be able to remotely delete data from every device on the planet".
Data propagates. You give your data to entity A. Entity A then shares it to entities B, C and D. You decide you don't want Entity A to have your data any more; you communicate your intentions to them, and they delete the file. But what about entities B, C and D? Entity A has no ability to delete the files in their possession. They could pass on your request, but entities B, C and D may be in a foreign country, or have gone out of business, or no longer be contactable through the previous channels, or be individuals. Not to mention that in the meantime, the data's propagates out through B, C and D to hundreds of other entities.
The EU can legislate anything it likes. The EU can legislate that you have the right to exceed the speed of light if they want. Don't expect that to actually change anything unless they actually provide some method to achieve that commensurate with the laws of physics.
Why should the community give up everything to a strictly proprietary, closed environment? We should maintain at least a free and open alternative!
The Game Tome isn't publishing their source code are they? Sounds like moving from one proprietary, closed environment to another. If you want a free and open alternative, then build it.
Yay! Can we get into an argument as to what bricked means?
Yay! Let's make it a relative term. I've got a friend who's an idiot. For him, hitting the off switch "bricks" the phone, cause he can't figure out how to fix it from that state.
So believe me when I say that if the judge I worked for, of if the judges my friends were working for were being offered bribes, I would definitely know about it. He isn't, and they aren't. Not even close. It just does not happen. Sorry.
And nobody's saying it does. Read the thread. I believe the originating sentiment is "the law is bought and paid for". That doesn't mean people are bribing judges; it means that people with money can drive the legislative process. The average net worth of first-term congressmen is almost four million dollars. "Lobbying" is a 3 billion dollars a year and growing industry. Really, the question isn't "is the law bought and paid for?" it's "how can anyone reasonably expect such a process to generate just laws?".
if you aren't a lawyer and you think a decision is crazy or wrong, the more likely explanation is that you just don't know the law that's being applied.
People who are judging the law aren't doing so on the basis of which laws were infringed, they're doing so on the basis of justice - which, increasingly, does not overlap with the legal technicalities.
the mere social contract between publisher and community, which essentially says that the latter will not copy it without permission
That's not a contract. A contract has a consideration for both parties (or it's not a valid contract)
people are no longer adhering to their side of that contract
It's going both ways. The public aren't adhering to their side of the contract, but then, neither are the publishers. The idea is that the public lets the publishers have the exclusive right to distribute (and thus, make money) in return for the publisher generating creative work for us all to access.
But the publishers aren't giving us access to creative work - they're locking it down. Region controls, DRM, perpetual copyright, pushing new formats that require re-purchasing. Their costs have plummeted (compare the cost of pressing and distributing vinyl to the cost of downloading), but their prices have risen (even after inflation). People are starting to see that they're getting the raw end of that "social contract", and they're in the process of tearing it up.
Never said they were magic, nor that biotic processes aren't understandable. We can understand the components that make up a living organism, and we can understand the chemical processes through which they interact. We can even create the components that make a living organism. What we can't do (although I'm not saying it's impossible) is initiate those processes, transforming something that is an inert collection of material into an autonomous entity; we can create a cell, but we can't create a monad.
The distinction between a living and organism and a collection of matter are those processes. And all life we've observed has originated from a previously living organism. Abiogenesis is sort of miniature version of the cosmological debate; one needs to find an effect without a cause, the other needs to find an individual without an ancestor (or possibly, a non-living ancestor).
Neither are blacks - at least, not to many ethicists in the 1700s. It's always easy to justify your actions when you can just define "human" to suit your own needs.
It's a problem that's universal across all cosmology, not just divine creation. Either you propose that the universe is infinitely old, and never had a beginning, or you posit that there was some sort of First Effect - an effect without a cause - that started the whole thing running. And if the universe itself is infinitely old and un-caused, then that too is a violation of the notion of cause and effect every bit as great as that of the First Effect.
And while the nature of matter may not be inherently living or non-living, that's really just nit-picking. There is a quantative distinction between an organism engaged in biotic processes and other collections of matter which are not.
No. Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living matter. In context as a piece of scientific terminology, it also usually conotes a natural process (i.e. not divine intervention).
Slashdot Mirror
No, it just means I accept the existence of metaphors.
I'm not sure how you define major version - the two most used in my experience are the King James, the NIV, and the ESV; it might be a country thing - I'm from Australia. Out of those, the ESV has the past tense, the King James doesn't. In the absence of an expert in ancient Hebrew, I'd say that there's not enough information to comment definitively on the tenses, but that based on the translations (which were presumably done by experts) it's somewhat reasonable to consider that it may be a valid interpretation.
And the narrative works fine either way - the story is that man was alone; God brought all the existing animals before him, but none were suitable, so God custom-build him a suitable companion.
Genesis is all Hebrew, Aramaic didn't come around until later.
My post was commenting exactly on the difference between those two words - in fact, if Slashdot wasn't stuck in the pre-unicode past, it would have contained precisely those two words in Hebrew. Elohim transliterates as "god" - the generic term for deity. Yahweh is, for various historical reasons, rendered as LORD in the Biblical text, and is what we refer to when we use "God" as a proper noun in English. The two terms used in those accounts are "Elohim" and "Yahweh Elohim" - they're not two different words, as the OP stated, they're two different usages - title, and title plus name.
The book of Genesis covers a massive chunk of Hebrew history - from the creation of the world, the tower of Babel, Noah's ark and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph and his shenanigans in Egypt. It's the book that covers the single longest historical period in the Bible - around 2,000 years or so.
In the first version it was animals first and then mankind, in the second version it was man first, then animals. (And then woman.)
No, it wasn't. Chapter 2 verse 18 uses the past tense "the Lord God had formed". The sequence of events:
Animals Created -> Man Created -> Animals Brought Before Man -> Woman Created
is consistent with both accounts.
Well, you obviously can be that stupid. When I mention "lowercase g" it's fairly obvious I'm talking about the English word - after all, Hebrew didn't have the letter g either. The English words god (lowercase g; generic deity) and God (uppercase G, specifically the Christian/Hebrew deity) have different meanings. When commenting on transliterations regarding those words, specifying that you're referring to a particular variant is common sense.
Do you have any reference for that? Which word in the original implies simultaneity?
In regards to your second point - the word for "god" (lowercase g) is the same word in both chapters - . However, Genesis 1 uses the word alone, whereas Genesis 2 uses it in conjunction with the name of the god in question - . A comparison of transliterations might be "In the beginning, the god created the heavens and the earth" (Gen1) "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the god Yahweh made the earth and the heavens." (Gen2). They're both using the same word, just Genesis 2 is a little bit more explicit. The term for "god" in Hebrew was like a title. Referring to someone either by their title ("Yes, Officer, I do know I was speeding") or by their name ("Yes, John, I do know I was speeding"), or by the two in conjunction ("Yes, Officer John, I do know I was speeding") are all equally valid, and all refer to the same person.
Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously different accounts (they're both describing the same event, after all) but that doesn't necessarily mean they're contradictory.
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Also, for what it's worth, I don't agree with the arguments for a literal interpretation of Genesis (few outside the US do), but I do believe in Biblical inerrancy.
No. In chapter one, male and female are created. It does not specify order, nor the period of time between one or the other, as it is an overview. In chapter two, which goes into detail, you get the specifics.
For reference, Genesis 1:27:
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2:8,18
Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
You may have read thousands of journal articles, but did you bother reading the parents' next sentence, where he states:
Anybody that worked in the field would tell you that mostly that part of the job is not properly done
Hard to see how the 9:1 ratio of lost packages could be such an anomaly though...
It's not the ratio - it's the fact that it's based on only 10 events. Just think - if one more non-branded package had gone through, the ratio would have halved. When would that next parcel have been lost? Would it have been on the 90th send, or the 180th? We don't know. If you were trying for statistical rigour, you'd want to repeat the experiment until you were satisfied that a few extra events on either side wouldn't have a significant event. Consider, if they'd had 90 branded lost, and 10 non-branded lost, the ratio would have made exactly the same as presented, but an extra event on either side would have had a far lower impact on the actual ratio.
Who are you to speak for the EU? And my signature's from a fantasy novel.
The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery
Large samples? 1 non-branded and 9 branded articles went missing. That's not a huge number of cases to examine. The "3 days longer" statistic seems to be massively skewed by a single non-representative parcel that took 37 days later than its counterpart. And even if their statistics were correct, all they have demonstrated is that branded parcels took longer than unbranded - they should have also sent parcels with "God is great" on them, or some such if they wanted to demonstrate the nature of the bradning was decisive.
Yeah, they should have to write their own OS in javascript in under 1k to qualify. And browser.
Well, reality doesn't, and that sort of overrules the EU's opinion on it. The EU might also think you have the right to own a pink elephant. Reality still won't care.
Let's see here. We have the EU defining a legal civil right. The corporate world says "oh noez! We can't do that! Our business model is BASED around violating that civil right!
Not quite. The EU defines a legal right that is totally unimplementable. The "right to be forgotten" translates to "the right to be able to remotely delete data from every device on the planet".
Data propagates. You give your data to entity A. Entity A then shares it to entities B, C and D. You decide you don't want Entity A to have your data any more; you communicate your intentions to them, and they delete the file. But what about entities B, C and D? Entity A has no ability to delete the files in their possession. They could pass on your request, but entities B, C and D may be in a foreign country, or have gone out of business, or no longer be contactable through the previous channels, or be individuals. Not to mention that in the meantime, the data's propagates out through B, C and D to hundreds of other entities.
The EU can legislate anything it likes. The EU can legislate that you have the right to exceed the speed of light if they want. Don't expect that to actually change anything unless they actually provide some method to achieve that commensurate with the laws of physics.
Why should the community give up everything to a strictly proprietary, closed environment? We should maintain at least a free and open alternative!
The Game Tome isn't publishing their source code are they? Sounds like moving from one proprietary, closed environment to another. If you want a free and open alternative, then build it.
Yay! Can we get into an argument as to what bricked means?
Yay! Let's make it a relative term. I've got a friend who's an idiot. For him, hitting the off switch "bricks" the phone, cause he can't figure out how to fix it from that state.
If they can, they weren't bricked in the first place. That's what "bricked" means.
So believe me when I say that if the judge I worked for, of if the judges my friends were working for were being offered bribes, I would definitely know about it. He isn't, and they aren't. Not even close. It just does not happen. Sorry.
And nobody's saying it does. Read the thread. I believe the originating sentiment is "the law is bought and paid for". That doesn't mean people are bribing judges; it means that people with money can drive the legislative process. The average net worth of first-term congressmen is almost four million dollars. "Lobbying" is a 3 billion dollars a year and growing industry. Really, the question isn't "is the law bought and paid for?" it's "how can anyone reasonably expect such a process to generate just laws?".
if you aren't a lawyer and you think a decision is crazy or wrong, the more likely explanation is that you just don't know the law that's being applied.
People who are judging the law aren't doing so on the basis of which laws were infringed, they're doing so on the basis of justice - which, increasingly, does not overlap with the legal technicalities.
the mere social contract between publisher and community, which essentially says that the latter will not copy it without permission
That's not a contract. A contract has a consideration for both parties (or it's not a valid contract)
people are no longer adhering to their side of that contract
It's going both ways. The public aren't adhering to their side of the contract, but then, neither are the publishers. The idea is that the public lets the publishers have the exclusive right to distribute (and thus, make money) in return for the publisher generating creative work for us all to access.
But the publishers aren't giving us access to creative work - they're locking it down. Region controls, DRM, perpetual copyright, pushing new formats that require re-purchasing. Their costs have plummeted (compare the cost of pressing and distributing vinyl to the cost of downloading), but their prices have risen (even after inflation). People are starting to see that they're getting the raw end of that "social contract", and they're in the process of tearing it up.
Never said they were magic, nor that biotic processes aren't understandable. We can understand the components that make up a living organism, and we can understand the chemical processes through which they interact. We can even create the components that make a living organism. What we can't do (although I'm not saying it's impossible) is initiate those processes, transforming something that is an inert collection of material into an autonomous entity; we can create a cell, but we can't create a monad.
The distinction between a living and organism and a collection of matter are those processes. And all life we've observed has originated from a previously living organism. Abiogenesis is sort of miniature version of the cosmological debate; one needs to find an effect without a cause, the other needs to find an individual without an ancestor (or possibly, a non-living ancestor).
Neither are blacks - at least, not to many ethicists in the 1700s. It's always easy to justify your actions when you can just define "human" to suit your own needs.
It's a problem that's universal across all cosmology, not just divine creation. Either you propose that the universe is infinitely old, and never had a beginning, or you posit that there was some sort of First Effect - an effect without a cause - that started the whole thing running. And if the universe itself is infinitely old and un-caused, then that too is a violation of the notion of cause and effect every bit as great as that of the First Effect.
And while the nature of matter may not be inherently living or non-living, that's really just nit-picking. There is a quantative distinction between an organism engaged in biotic processes and other collections of matter which are not.
No. Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living matter. In context as a piece of scientific terminology, it also usually conotes a natural process (i.e. not divine intervention).
Merriam-Webster
Wikipedia