Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
`Male and female x all living creatures = Yahweh Happy`
Later, we are told `only 7 of certain groups within groups (i.e. `clean or unclean,` which is within `each according to their kind`), and then two INDIVIDUAL counterparts of each group so they can mate.
So obviously, `7 of each type of clean animal and aviary creature` limits the original `2 of all living creatures` based on the context in which 2 was being used; as individual members from each respective gender, from each respective group, regardless of cleanliness.
It`s a simple matter of protocol. First comes "All living things." That encompasses "each according to their kinds," which encompasses "Clean and Unclean" types, which ultimately encompasses "Male and Female."
However, if we were originally told to bring a MALE and FEMALE counterpart of EACH and every living creature, then only limiting certain groups to 7 of their type (obviously this is not referring to individual male and female counterparts for 7 is an odd number) would in fact void the original instruction.
All living creatures_________________________________________
Each according to their `kind`_____________________________
Clean and `unclean`__________________
Male & Female
In the first passage, talking about "2 of all living creatures, male and female," it is obvious that 2 refers two individual members (of opposite gender) from each and every species, "to keep them alive with you."
Then, when we get to the `7` specifications, I believe it`s obvious that we are now referring to CERTAIN species which fall under the classification of `clean` or `unclean,` as in 7 TYPES of clean animals "a male and its mate," for otherwise there is NO interpretation which would make sense of `a male and its mate,` i.e. couplings, within 7 individual members of a given classification.
It`s not a contradiction at all to take 2 of everything and 7 of some things, you know. There`s still 2 of everything.
Also, I just don`t know HOW these 13th-century monks could have just glanced-over such glaring contradictions as these, especially when their only occupation was scribing, and their only object of reproduction was `scripture!` Naievity and integrity make interesting bedfellows...
And also checkout Galations 3:25 (especially the part about no longer being `under the law,` for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]) and Romans 3:28 - "For we maintain that a man is justified by FAITH APART from observing the law." Ha ha! It`s their feeble attempt to reconcile a god as the arbiter of rules, and a god as the redeemer of our posteriorly-asserted inability to follow those laws! That was the whole point of Jesus being sacrificed for us, right? So what the bible REALLY needs to do here is delineate the degree to which we must abide by these laws + faith (James) in order to get to Heaven; that`s all! What`s so hard about it, God?
Anyway, so far as contradictions go, I found a much better one a while back which really underlies the Christian corner-stone of faith vs. deeds:
Ephesians 2:8-9, - "For by grace you are saved through FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God`s gift - not from works, so that no one can boast."
THEN it says, in James 2:24 - "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
and 2 Samuel 21:8 reads: "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah`s daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul`s daugher Merab whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."
Anyone who doesn`t know that hasn`t attempted to read it. Continuity and resolution meant sh*t back in those days, apparently.
"Hell with Ephesians, I`m writing THIS goddamned book.", said James
i was going to go on... but i realy cba
--some of that was funny, but it was still too full of poo to be truly funny
If we have two seemingly identical verses:"Bob had a cat that he doted on""Bob had a dog that he doted on"
It`s perfectly reasonable to suggest one is a mistranslated/inaccurate version of the other, however, he could just have had a cat and a dog, and you can`t really argue contradiction.
In some versions of the Bible. (Holman, Young, American Standard Version, New Living Translation, etc all translate 7:2/3 as "seven pairs").
Meanwhile KJV, NIV both seem to suggest only 7, not 7 pairs.
In this case it would be a contradiction if and only if: In 7:2 It is definitely 7, and not 7 pairs.In 6:19 the original text does not allow for any other translation such as:Two types of each animal (Male and female). Pairs of each animal (Which is still consistent with 7:2).The language excludes the possibility of later elaboration. (E.g. If a friend is buying something at the shop: "Just get 2 of every colour. Oh and get 7 red ones they`re my favourite." will not make his head implode.)
There are much better contradictions than this. Eg. 2 Samuel 6:23 VS 21:8.
That`s it, SEVEN of each unclean animal, and SEVEN of each type of bird, when originally we were told to bring two of each (every kind of bird and animal, regardless of cleanliness). In fact, the only group we are now taking `two each` of are the clean animals, so what gives? That is where I am referring the contradiction to.
As for the first part of your post, I`m not sure he was trying to rebutt my insistence on a contradiction, but if you are talking about the same thing I was, here`s why it`s still contradictory outside any cleanliness or bird/non-bird issues:
"Genesis 6:19 - You are to bring into the ark TWO of ALL living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. TWO of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
Ok, so that`s ALL creatures, regardless of race, creed or cleanliness; so why are we to bring 7 each of certain SELECT categories once we get to Chapter 7?
Well, I was using the New International Version when I quoted that passage; I just found it interesting that Hebrews didn`t apparently find use in assigning clean/unclean status to birds, and thus did not consider them to be within the same classification of `animal` as others. Obviously, there is a Hebrew word for animal, and for some reason birds are not included in that. So were fish considered animals? Insects? Bacteria (no, they were considered demons)? Just an interesting cultural meme/convention, like how some cultures only use two color specifications: green and black (edible and inedible).
Maybe someday it will be considered "cool" to act like an intelligent adult around here, and then the worlds greatest superpower might actually use itself for some GOOD! hehe.
And I`m not gonna look at the solo to Stairway the same ever again. Love the video by the way, nicely done.
The music still sounds Arabic to me, though, even on the link Baalthazaq gave to the original Punjabi song.
thx for taking the time to do that, really.
As for the Noah segment, I think the hair he might have been splitting can be found in this verse:
Genesis 7:2 - "Take with you SEVEN of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throught the earth."
The problem? The bible contradicts itself on this issue; it shouldn`t be so surprising. In fact, in this verse, the only dual-pairing involved unclean animals and birds, which apparently unbeknownst to Yahweh are also considered animals, though due to their uselessness to early warring Semetic tribesman may not have yielded a cleanliness status.
so dont say its not in the bible until you actually know, cuz your just making yourself look stupid.
You f*cking showoff.
Meant in a good way, I assure you.
"This is the best frat EVER! You guys are the bomb!"
"No, you`re the bomb."
"Naw, y`all are the bomb!"
"No...you ARE the bomb."
Alright, coming right-up...
I`ve never seen that picture/heard that phrase in every argument on IAB. Ever.
You should have a tv show where you do other original things like talking to unwed teenage mothers or reporting current local events.
A great little parody on the "religion of peace."
"...No.YOU are the bomb!"
Thanks for hijacking another thread. Usually, people on IAB look at the posting, put their two cents and move on....maybe a reply or 2.
There are plenty of other forums on the net where people debate themselves to death (youthink for example)
Also, if you`re interested, I would be happy to post a video-explication of these scalar definitions and distinctions on youtube for a more complete understanding of what the F*CK I`m talking about for your sake. Also, I don`t blame you for mixing-up the scalar definitions, its certainly not expected from the `untrained ear.` I give you an `A` for effort regardless.
If (for whatever reason) you knew no copulation had occurred on a particular farm. You could describe any of the animals there as "virgins".
I`m fairly sure it`d matter to quite a few annoyed Muslims if they arrived in heaven to meet their 72 "female insects or other arthropods that produce fertile eggs without copulating"source
But sorry for being so short with you, you just picked a bad time to hit on one of my pet peeves. :)
Indeed. But still, we could easily be brothers. Who`s your daddy? lol
Re me and NyQ, sure we look the same superficially, but that eye closed in a sardonic but friendly, confiding but with a slight sense of aloofness, intelligent yet good-humored wink makes all the difference, don`t you think? (There`s also a slight blurriness about my image. That wasn`t intentional, but you can think of it as a halo.)
Also, on another musical note, much of Arabic music is HALF-toned, meaning instead of adhering to Western standards of equal-temperment tuning popularized by Bach which specifies 12 keys in every scale, equally tuned apart from eachother, the arabic scales often specify 24 `keys` or more before an original frequency (beginning of scale) is matched by its double at the `end` of the scale.
`Twas not I.
(Yes they do sound like goth chicks. No I don`t know if they wear chains. No I don`t know if they come custom made with different hair colours or whatever)
Described as virgins often because a) They`re created specifically for each person, and therefore have never had sex until you get to heaven, but mainly b) the most mentioned trait they have is that they always "feel" virginal.
There is some not so serious debate as to what exactly this means. I`ve heard everything from regenerating hymens to the personal time shifting intervention of God. I don`t hold much stock in either of those.
They get 72 houris to each (deserving) person. Not a brothel of 72 which all of heaven share.
there IS such a thing as Arabic-style music, and it is in fact typified by the harmonic-minor scale, which involves the same components as a normal minor-scale except its last degree (7th-8th) finishes as if major, with the leading tone intact, which is why you hear that large-gap between the 6th and 7th intervals; the 7th interval has, in effect, jumped by a half-step from its original positioning, to create a full step-and-a-half gap from the 6th interval in ITS natural state.
That is in fact DIFFERENT from the "oriental" sound, which is typified by the major pentatonic scale; also popularized by the "Stairway to Heaven" solo in minor form, and let us not forget the archetypal minor-blues scale (which involves an added flat-5 interval of course)!
By all means, continue thinking you are smarter. Continue dodging damaging questions for which you have no response.
And learn a new "word of the week." "Incidentally" is a little worn out.
You know, of the two of us, which has been caught outright lying? Certainly not me. It was only a double-barreled question because any response would require you to actually admit that you lied. True, it may be called a "complex question," to speak in terms of logical fallacy, but no one here needs you to answer the question to know you just lied.
Go make up crap elsewhere. Perhaps people here do want to learn, but they certainly don`t want to learn the lies you have to offer.
So according to the Britannica, the notion of virginity does not come from the word itself but from "numerous references in the Qur`an".
I have some vague recollection that a houri is a woman of a harem, but I`m not sure where I saw that, or if I`m remembering correctly.
Thanks for finally answering my question; sort of. I still don`t know what the proper translation is supposed to equate to; concubine, wife, sister, hoochie-momma? Do these dead souls get to share their conjugal succubi? Or are they all specific to one brothel?
You know, in law school I thought they taught you logical fallacies so that you could avoid them, not as a "how to" to arguing.
Incidentally, you haven`t demonstrated that the act or actor is ignorant. Do you get that yet?
I didn`t clean up the board for any kind of intellectual inadequacies, that again is your own assumption from your own preconceptions which you are circularly using to defend your opinions.
I cleaned up the board initially because it`s annoying as hell to have 2 people bickering in a thread that is SUPPOSED to be for everyone. Which is why I tried to ignore you until someone started speaking on my behalf. I`m fairly sure 90% of the people here would want us both to delete all our posts in here.
If you ever decide to actually attempt a proper response I`ll be waiting. If it nears adequacy, I`ll respond.
However, by definition, if an act is "ignorant" then the actor is "ignorant." I refer you, again, to my previous post on that issue. For instance, a person jumping off a roof is an "ignorant act," however, the act itself cannot be said to have a lack of knowledge. Therefore, the person that committed the act suffers from a lack of knowledge. Get it yet?
And, it is not I who have questioned these other people`s intelligence. That was you when you summarized your posts to "clean up the board."
Now answer my question instead of side-stepping: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?
At the very least you failed to find anything relevant or worse still, remember anything relevant. Which really only comes to the conclusion that it was an effective summary once I answered your two complaints. (One real, one fictitious).
You accused me of hiding the hindi mistake: "You conveniently forgot to capture in your summary that you claimed the writing in the video was in Hindi, when it was in English. Let`s not leave that out of your self-serving Reader`s Digest account."
Which was a flat out lie. A summary need not include aspects outside of what it is summarizing. I was summarizing the deleted posts. I stated as much. "Deleted all my responses to NYQ to clean up this thread. In summary I said:"
"Oh, and you removed the link to the "dictionary.com" reference you made. Undoubtedly a powerful source, but it only demonstrated that you aren`t nearly as intelligent as you would have us believe."
I stand by my statement, as well as the link provided.
Because something CAN be defined generally as "ignorant" doesn`t make an individual example ignorant. That`s like saying "Chairs can be red" "Um, yes" "Therefore your chair is red!".
I argued the task we were talking about isn`t ignorant in and of itself.
My second statement can be demonstrated as to where and whether I qualify myself in any way before speaking. I generally do not with exception to cases of direct experience.
I said I don`t pity people here. I make statements, and in most cases I expect people to be able to verify them themselves unless I provide the verification.
I claimed you mimic me only in the negative aspects you claim to hate. You do not respect the IAB posters enough to make decisions for themselves and feel you need to bottle feed them information only when it relates specifically to your ego.
I stopped watching half way through
I would also like to hear your theories on why you think you are smarter than me.
And, again, here is one question you have not answered: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?
"Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:53:35 PMYou deleted the post that contained your admission that you are an arrogant c/oc/ksucker and asked to have the pleasure of blowing me."
You think sadly that I am better than you and you hate it, you hate that you don`t compare and hate even more that on some internet forum what I say might possibly carry more weight than what you have to say, that`s why you went off on B-Hazard for defending me.
You crave the attention and therefore set yourself up as some sort of IAB folk hero saving them from me. It eats you up inside that you`re not worth much, and it makes you feel big to pretend you`ve somehow outsmarted someone smarter than you.
So what have you actually got out of all this? I made a mistake about some letters. Carry on defending IAB oh mighty saviour. ;)
"I knew they weren`t Arabic and got irritated and made an assumption based on how the letters looked."
See? You just make stuff up when it suits you, but you continue to characterize it as a mistake. lol.
Come on, let`s attack substance and not form. It`s much more interesting that way.
I never claimed that you held yourself out as anything other than someone who was knowledgeable about a topic. When you say "this is this, and that is that" you are representing that you know something. It was your representation, not mine.
You have me at a distinct disadvantage when you count my posts, because you have deleted so many of yours that it`s impossible to know when or if you posted anything. At least I have the decency to stand by everything that I said the first time around without re-thinking it and going back and "summarizing."
I don`t think that anyone is suggesting you are trying to hide your "mistake." But what is curious is what you ARE trying to hide in having deleted so many posts. Oh, and to call an outright lie a `mistake` is kind of downplaying the matter.
You`re a fraud and everything you say lacks credibility, save that which bears a source
What I don`t understand is why people are looking to me as if I ever claimed to be an authority on Hindi in the first place.
And also why some people are ludicrously suggesting I`m trying to hide it. My mistake is there in the first post, unedited.
Pabasa spotted it, Bambii spotted it, NyQ spotted it (in what, his 8th post?), and now Cy.
For all your talk of doing this to bring me down a peg on behalf of the IAB community, all you started with was "Stop whining".
You only took on the mantle of Guardian of IAB when you couldn`t grab a hold of anything worthwhile to fault me on. (Until your 8th post of course where you started claiming I had put myself forward as some sort of Hindi language guru).
I know, it looks like I`m talking to myself. I`m really not that crazy....
Deleting your posts again?
*sigh* It`s shameful that someone who is apparently as strong-willed as yourself doesn`t even have the balls to stand by what he says. At least other people, even having acted like complete a$$holes, will leave their posts up.
But see, that`s not the same as if I had said "The music is definitely Arabic". Now that would have been BS.
But, how about addressing substance: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?
But, when in doubt, make it up!
Technically that would probably make the language being sung Punjabi, and the music specifically Bhangra.
Which technically would be Pakistani and British respectively, with Hindi influences, but neither in themselves directly Hindi other than having roots in the Indian subcontinent.
And I was wrong about the letters. :P I knew they weren`t Arabic and got irritated and made an assumption based on how the letters looked.
"And the Music was certainly Arabic-style". So what else are YOU BSing about?
So just where did you pull Hindi from as you tried to sound like you knew what you were talking about? And if you`re BSing about that, what else are you BSing about?
And yes, you stated why you deleted the posts. I`m sure everyone appreciates your "cleaning up" of the thread, but no other threads are cleaned up and they still function perfectly well. Your excuse for deleting your posts is thinly- and lousily-veiled because it`s clear that you didn`t like a record being made of you looking like an utter fool.
Nonetheless, I saw them, so I am personally satisfied.
The post did not fit with the link as the url+tags count towards the "Max Chars" but to be honest I just lost it when copying and pasting. (Incidentally I stand by my statement that it is not ignorant).
I stated why I deleted the posts. If you wish to imagine it is for some more sinister reason feel free. If there`s something I *actually* missed point it out and I will delete this post and replace it with one that contains the missing element.
I think you`ll find anything relevant is there.
This skit = lamer.
This type of comedy in general = double lame.
I`d have to agree with Baalt here though - don`t make fun of something unless you know what it actually means. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an a$$ and then people laugh at you.
You conveniently forgot to capture in your summary that you claimed the writing in the video was in Hindi, when it was in English. Let`s not leave that out of your self-serving Reader`s Digest account.
Responding with a full post is no more arrogant than posting at all. Both assume equally that the readers care about your opinion.
I stated that I don`t tend to brag about what I know. I simply post and allow people to take from it what they wish.
I stated that people`s perceptions of me are possibly mistaken if they think I`m pitying people here, or looking down on them.
I finally claimed that NyQ has sat and done all the things he claims I do, with the difference being I don`t think it`s necessarily a bad thing, and he does.
I said my messages against this video would be ideally placed here to reach the same people the video reaches.
Oh, and I said he drank the blood of innocents after his 10th or so false accusation.
To clue you in, here is the real difference: You go after the public writ large; I only go after you.
And, from here on out, I, hopefully along with others, will recall that you mistook English for Hindi and we will take that into consideration when you next claim to understand something that we don`t.
I have a pretty decent command of the Arabic language. (Thppppppt). :P
Also, I never said you had a "task." That was a response to B`s statement regarding "trying...to extinguish the flame..."
And your initial statement also claimed that the writing was Hindi, when it is, in fact, English.
I responded because you made a statement of fact that was wrong. But the type of ignorance you are condemning is cultural, not semantic. Furthermore, those who made the statement against which you spoke (the producers of this `trailer`) will never hear your rant. If you want to set someone straight, address the culprit.
And, no, that word is absolutely correct. Look at definition 4 at the link you provided, genius. "...showing a lack of knowledge" Ergo, undertaking the task of "extinguish[ing] the flame of ignorance" shows the "lack of knowledge" of he who makes that attempt. If you`ll notice, the link you provided also provides an example, to wit: "an ignorant statement." If a statement can be ignorant (i.e. showing a lack of knowledge in the speaker), then a task can be ignorant (i.e. showing a lack of knowledge in the person) as well.
I have a pretty decent command of the English language. Don`t try to throw the dictionary in my face.
O, to only be as enlightened as he. We are not worthy to be in his e-presence. All kowtow to the eternal wisdom of Baalthazaq.-
He`s responding to something. He`d be an arrogant prick if he was just spewing off how much more he knew and people weren`t acting like they knew it all already. He`s just trying to clear up what a general audience sees as fact, I don`t get how that comes off as someone boasting about their knowledge.
O, to only be as enlightened as he. We are not worthy to be in his e-presence. All kowtow to the eternal wisdom of Baalthazaq.
In any event, the satire of this comedy sketch is meant to play on common misconceptions, not to make some resounding political statement.
There`s a difference between a Turkish TV station releasing a sitcom called "The Taliban" making fun of the group, and someone who doesn`t have a clue what they`re talking about playing off and enforcing stereotypes.
But maybe that`s just my view on the situation.
You`re always whining and crying about something. It must suck to always have something to bitc# about.
Currently western media uses the following words wrong, or substitutes an inadequate translation:Jihad, Jihadi, Martyr, Taliban.The word we use for school is used as "terrorist training camp" (Madrasa). Etc.
Seriously, imagine a situation where your entire culture is demonized like that.
When you say "I`m picking up the kids from school", the media reports you as saying "My kids are at a terrorist training camp".
Or a reporter going into prisons in the US and saying:As you can see, rape is common in what they call these "Bathrooms".Here is an American now, can you tell me where you`re going?Suicism: Um.. just the bathroom.As you can see, rape is like a hobby in American culture.
Oh, and just... not funny. I think them invading a jewish Frat would be amazing.
But meh, stereotypes, and ignorance. I can appreciate the comedy but it still sucks.
And it was funny. `You`re the bomb` `No, you ARE the bomb`
Incidentally, it`s not 72 "virgins" like you hear on every American comedy skit for the last 20 years, but hey I guess it doesn`t matter that you`re mocking a concept you don`t even have an inkling of. I dunno why I expect better when you learn 90% of your theology from the disney channel.
Yeah, sure, the devil is a red guy with horns who pokes people in Hell. People turn into harp players when they die. Eve gave Adam an apple. The Animals went in Noah`s Arc 2 by 2. So much stuff and not a word of it actually exists anywhere in the bible.
Not surprised people find this funny, if ignorance is bliss.
(P.S. Don`t even bother quoting the "72 virgins" line to me if you can`t translate the word yourself. You`ll find it`s not the word for virgin.)