Talk:World History Lecture One - Revision history

Aschlafly: /* I am who I am */ "YHWH" is more common than "YHVH"

2011-08-30T15:03:45Z

I am who I am: "YHWH" is more common than "YHVH"

Akuron at 00:32, February 26, 2009

2009-02-26T00:32:46Z

Philip J. Rayment: Move new topic to end and reply.

2009-02-14T22:49:59Z

Move new topic to end and reply.

Akuron at 17:42, February 14, 2009

2009-02-14T17:42:05Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* egyptian chronology */ Good article.

2009-02-12T21:43:19Z

egyptian chronology: Good article.

Conservative: /* egyptian chronology */ new section

2009-02-06T06:49:31Z

egyptian chronology: new section

MattL: /* More on dates and other problems */ That's too many Vulgates.

2009-02-06T02:30:44Z

More on dates and other problems: That's too many Vulgates.

Philip J. Rayment: /* More on dates and other problems */ On the Vulgate and more on the Wisdom books.

2009-02-06T02:24:32Z

More on dates and other problems: On the Vulgate and more on the Wisdom books.

MattL: /* More on dates and other problems */

2009-02-06T00:40:37Z

Aschlafly: replies

2009-02-06T00:13:03Z

replies

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, August 30, 2011
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:: I think your unsigned interlocutor was correct on this one. I don't think there's a straight translation of the Name; there's certainly no Jewish tradition of one, and not a Christian one that I'm aware of - hence the LXX translating the k're ''Adonai'' with ''Kurie''. There is something of the verb "to be" about it, but nothing susceptible to straight translation or simple explanation. [[User:DeniseM\|DeniseM]] 18:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)		:: I think your unsigned interlocutor was correct on this one. I don't think there's a straight translation of the Name; there's certainly no Jewish tradition of one, and not a Christian one that I'm aware of - hence the LXX translating the k're ''Adonai'' with ''Kurie''. There is something of the verb "to be" about it, but nothing susceptible to straight translation or simple explanation. [[User:DeniseM\|DeniseM]] 18:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	:::"YHWH" is more common than "YHVH".--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

	:How dare you introduce fact? Escpecially delving into linguistics and semantics. ;) [[User:NousEpirrhytos\|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)		:How dare you introduce fact? Escpecially delving into linguistics and semantics. ;) [[User:NousEpirrhytos\|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:32, February 26, 2009
Line 156:		Line 156:
	: Cuneiform tables don't have that ability! Whether or not that ability of cellular telephones is a good analogy of a person determinging meaning from context may be another matter.		: Cuneiform tables don't have that ability! Whether or not that ability of cellular telephones is a good analogy of a person determinging meaning from context may be another matter.
	: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:49, 14 February 2009 (EST)		: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:49, 14 February 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	::That clarifies the use of the analogy: and yes, I agree with you that it doesn't help me understand how "foot" can mean "foot" or "go" depending on context. I think the analogy should foot. [[User:Akuron\|Akuron]] 19:32, 25 February 2009 (EST)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :And I believe they have found writing as far back as 5500 BC in Pakistan.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm]--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 01:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 Oops, misread the article.  It is 5500 years old, but nevertheless in Pakistan, not Iraq.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 01:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 == I am who I am ==
@@ Line 137: / Line 131: @@
 Here is an excellent article: Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood? at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)
 : Yes, that's a very good discussion of the situation.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:43, 12 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, February 14, 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Oops, misread the article. It is 5500 years old, but nevertheless in Pakistan, not Iraq.--[[User:Jack\|Jack]] 01:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)		Oops, misread the article. It is 5500 years old, but nevertheless in Pakistan, not Iraq.--[[User:Jack\|Jack]] 01:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

		+	----
		+
		+	"For those who "text message" on cell phones, notice how each key has multiple possible letters and ''how the phone resolves the ambiguity'' and forms words depending on how the letters fit together to form a word."
		+
		+	I think this example is confusing. The phone doesn't resolve ambiguity in text messages, the reader does. To say the phone resolves the ambiguity would be analagous to saying the cuneiform tablet resolves the ambiguity as to whether "foot symbol" means "foot" or "go", etc. Such ambiguities or multiple meanings are a standard feature of language, no? There's probably no need to address this issue in the lecture. If you choose to do so, you might just say that each cuneiform symbol has multiple meanings depending on context as do modern words and symbols such that a modest number of symbols can express a great amount.

	== I am who I am ==		== I am who I am ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, February 12, 2009
Line 131:		Line 131:

	Here is an excellent article: Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood? at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503 [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)		Here is an excellent article: Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood? at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503 [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)
		+	: Yes, that's a very good discussion of the situation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:43, 12 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:49, February 6, 2009
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)		:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)
	:::::::Hmm...[[Latin Vulgate]] and [[Vulgate]]?? [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 21:30, 5 February 2009 (EST)		:::::::Hmm...[[Latin Vulgate]] and [[Vulgate]]?? [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 21:30, 5 February 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== egyptian chronology ==
		+
		+	Here is an excellent article: Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood? at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503 [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, February 6, 2009
Line 126:		Line 126:
	:::::: Andy, I forgot to reply to your comment about some psalms being quite old. You are correct, but these very old ones I think are quite few in number and don't really change the fact that most of the Wisdom books greatly post-date Moses. The possible exceptions are Job (as I mentioned), and a ''very few'' of the psalms.		:::::: Andy, I forgot to reply to your comment about some psalms being quite old. You are correct, but these very old ones I think are quite few in number and don't really change the fact that most of the Wisdom books greatly post-date Moses. The possible exceptions are Job (as I mentioned), and a ''very few'' of the psalms.
	:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)		:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)
		+	:::::::Hmm...[[Latin Vulgate]] and [[Vulgate]]?? [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 21:30, 5 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, February 6, 2009
Line 122:		Line 122:

	:::::On another note, your objection to the Ussher chronology based on the availability of documents is logical, but I would argue that it is much easier to doubt the secular dates of documents compared to the approximately 1600 year period between creation and flood obtained from an exegesis of Genesis. Although, the general disparity between Septuagint and Vulgate would perhaps speak to the contrary! Nonetheless, fascinating...time to dig a little deeper. [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 19:40, 5 February 2009 (EST)		:::::On another note, your objection to the Ussher chronology based on the availability of documents is logical, but I would argue that it is much easier to doubt the secular dates of documents compared to the approximately 1600 year period between creation and flood obtained from an exegesis of Genesis. Although, the general disparity between Septuagint and Vulgate would perhaps speak to the contrary! Nonetheless, fascinating...time to dig a little deeper. [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 19:40, 5 February 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	:::::: I'm also surprised that the Vulgate gives a different date. I notice, though, that our [[Latin Vulgate]] article says that Jerome originally translated some of the OT books from the Septuagint, so does this explain the different date? The Septuagint is well known as having different (and impossible) dates, and is generally rejected as a reliable source of those dates.
		+	:::::: Andy, I forgot to reply to your comment about some psalms being quite old. You are correct, but these very old ones I think are quite few in number and don't really change the fact that most of the Wisdom books greatly post-date Moses. The possible exceptions are Job (as I mentioned), and a ''very few'' of the psalms.
		+	:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, February 6, 2009
Line 118:		Line 118:

	:::: I am surprised to hear that the Vulgate would support a different date (by a thousand years) from other Christian analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 5 February 2009 (EST)		:::: I am surprised to hear that the Vulgate would support a different date (by a thousand years) from other Christian analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 5 February 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	:::::I am also surprised by the disparity. It's definitely something I'm going to look into a little more and would enjoy sharing with the community here.
		+
		+	:::::On another note, your objection to the Ussher chronology based on the availability of documents is logical, but I would argue that it is much easier to doubt the secular dates of documents compared to the approximately 1600 year period between creation and flood obtained from an exegesis of Genesis. Although, the general disparity between Septuagint and Vulgate would perhaps speak to the contrary! Nonetheless, fascinating...time to dig a little deeper. [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 19:40, 5 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, February 6, 2009
Line 114:		Line 114:

	:::Andy, what do you think of the 5199 BC date derived from the [[Vulgate]]? That would peg the flood at around 3500 BC. [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 17:21, 5 February 2009 (EST)		:::Andy, what do you think of the 5199 BC date derived from the [[Vulgate]]? That would peg the flood at around 3500 BC. [[User:FundieMath\|FundieMath]] 17:21, 5 February 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	:::: I have an open mind about the dispute over the dates. I do agree with Philip above that the dates often given for Egyptian achievements seem older than expected. If the dates for writings or civilizations are pegged to those dubious assumptions about Egypt, then it would throw everything off.
		+
		+	:::: I am surprised to hear that the Vulgate would support a different date (by a thousand years) from other Christian analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 5 February 2009 (EST)