This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Munkay]

And as a personal aside, the one part of the Bible that always gets to me in English is Yeshua asking Peter three times if he loves him. In English, all you see is the word "love."

The actual verse is so much more beautiful... So much more meaningful.

Peter, are you my friend?

Peter, are you my brother?

Peter, do you love me enough to die for me?

But the translators just translated the words in to words rather than their meanings. Bother.

And with that, I should go back in to my own closet before somebody becomes annoyed with me.

Faith is a broad subject to often trapped in narrow minds.

Sorry to butt my head in here, but your comment on the 'meaning' of the word love used in the bible drew my attention. What exactly do you mean by "the translators just translated the words into words rather than their meanings"?

There are three types of 'love' used in the new testament, (pardon the transliteration into English characters) agapew, philew, and eraw, the love for god, the Platonic love, and the sexual/desire love.

I believe in this case all three are going to be philew, Platonic love of friendship/brotherhood/caring. In this case, I think the type of love intended in the ancient texts carries over quite well into the English.

Although I understand the language and have read the bible, I am uncertain what passage you are refering to. If you tell me the verse I'll be happy to look up the specific words used in my new testament book.

Now I hope I am not misunderstood, I have an immense respect for the bible as a literary work. The ancient text itself is an incredible piece of literature, and it is an incredibly beautiful text in the ancient compared to the English.

But in this case Doc, I don't think the translation is missing too much.

Cheers,

Munk

[Doc]

Sorry to butt my head in here, but your comment on the 'meaning' of the word love used in the bible drew my attention.  What exactly do you mean by "the translators just translated the words into words rather than their meanings"?

There are three types of 'love' used in the new testament, (pardon the transliteration into English characters) agapew, philew, and eraw, the love for god, the Platonic love, and the sexual/desire love.

I believe in this case all three are going to be philew, Platonic love of friendship/brotherhood/caring.  In this case, I think the type of love intended in the ancient texts carries over quite well into the English.

Although I understand the language and have read the bible, I am uncertain what passage you are refering to.  If you tell me the verse I'll be happy to look up the specific words used in my new testament book.

Now I hope I am not misunderstood, I have an immense respect for the bible as a literary work.  The ancient text itself is an incredible piece of literature, and it is an incredibly beautiful text in the ancient compared to the English.

But in this case Doc, I don't think the translation is missing too much.

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]97976[/snapback][/right]

At the end of the Gospel of John, which Yeshua asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring Peter's three denials. I am not good at quoting scripture numbers, because I use a 1611 Commissioned King James writ in old english, and there are no scripture numbers or markers. I have other Bibles, but I tend to ignore the scripture tags.

It's not always the word it self that is important, but how it is used in the whole text. That's the problem translating in to English.

Some times, depending on how the word is used, it can mean an entire train of thought compressed in to a single word.

In particular, philia, a deep and powerful love between friends, which is one of the words used in this exchange.

Storge is also implied here, a familial love. Just because a word is not actually used doesn't mean that it is not there. Some times, you have to read between the lines and understand all of what is being said to gather the sense of what is being talked about. Descriptions of what is being said are just as important as actual words. People at that time would have known that anybody conversing would know what was being implied or intended... What they would not have known is that one day, it would lose so much in translation. And here is a great source of debate... We do not know all of the slang, all of the implications, all of the subtle nuances of what was being said way back when. So there is endless debate on what is actually being implied for so many conversations, and so many controversial Bible translations like the New Aplified Versions which take some (but not all) of these implied read between the lines concepts in to consideration.

Eros can also have many distinct meanings, meaning a passionate love toward God, toward family, toward a lover, and toward a platonic friendship. If you take eros at face value with out taking the rest of the conversation in to context, it can cause a lot of problems, and some very nasty scholars have used this particular angle to imply homosexual relations between the Twelve. Some times, it is not what is said, but how it is said as a whole conversation that is important.

Agape is of course used here.

A good read is CS Lewis The Four Loves.

It is also interesting to note, and most people do not know this, but Eros and Agape both have been used for sexual implications. Eros is of course the common, which is why it has a reputation, but the other is often a suprise for many. Neither are actually sexual or physical unless otherwise implied in supporting conversation.

Storge = affection friend family
Philia = brotherly love
Agape = All consuming love, a love worth dying for.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Too many modern physicists seem to forget this.
They approach and write about theoretical physics as if it were math but too often still call it science.

I think its Eisnstein envy driving it.
[right][snapback]97970[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps to some extent it is. However, mathematics is something beyond what I stated in my previous post. It is the ultimate language for expressing relationships between quantities in a clear and precise way. I don't know how else to explain this, but when I speak English, I think in English; when I speak Italian, I think in Italian; and when I'm 'speaking' math, I think in math.

Often in a pre-calculus physics course, the instructor will say something like, "The force is the mass times the acceleration, which has the equation:" and go on to write 'F = ma' on the blackboard. To one sufficiently expert in mathematics, that has a jarring sound. Indeed, the English expression is simply a translation from 'math'. The version in the language of math immediately 'pays it's way' by clearly indicating some operations that could be performed, some conclusions that could be drawn. And it has the beauty that, when later one meets 'V=IR' in learning about electricity, one already knows a plethora of properties because this is the same equation -- to this extents the systems are isomorphic. So, one doesn't need to learn electricity from scratch, just those parts that don't map into mechanics (and that is a lot less than you might think ;) ).

And the reason that it becomes more so in modern physics is because the domains we are studying there are more remote from our ordinary experience. Our experience is linear, Euclidean, with a constant flow of time, etc. etc. Anything that I say in trying to describe an electron using any spoken language is wrong, either by omission or by commission. It either gives too vague an idea or one that is too solid. Yes it is a particle, and you imagine a grain of sand on the beach. But it is a wave, and you imagine the water just over the sand. People have proposed 'waveticle' and other non-sense words to name the concept. But what does that accomplish? Can one point to a macroscopic waveticle and say, "an electron is just like that, only smaller and negatively charged."? So, just as defining one unknown in terms of another does no good, so does trying to speak of modern physics in any language but mathematics do no good.

Ultimately, an electron is just an entity defined by a handful of mathematical properties, some of which defy translation into the language of primates who evolved in a 10 eV world. Beings from the center of a star (assuming there are any) would probably be as perplexed in trying to describe a solid object, like a cue ball.

And, of course, there's the irony that we really do, like the drunk who lost his keys in the dark but searched for them near the light, study that which we can. Perhaps, had we taken a different turn millenia ago, we would have an intuitive understanding of their properties. It is that which makes some Eastern religions so intriguing to physicists -- that some of their concepts from ages ago are distorted shadows of modern findings. Perhaps, one day someone will search the shadows undisturbed for eons and we will come out of the cave.

But for now, math's the best we can do.

--Pete

PS I'm following normal practice in this post of blurring the distinction between the map and the terrain. But to have said things like "Ultimately, our model of an electron is . . ." gets too pedantic even for me after a while. :rolleyes:

[--Pete]

Math gives me a headache.[right][snapback]97961[/snapback][/right]

Take an aspirin. Now take another. Call me in the morning. :D

[Doc]

Take an aspirin.  Now take another.  Call me in the morning.  :D
[right][snapback]97988[/snapback][/right]

It's the numbers that get me.

Abstract concepts now, I can deal with those. I have some small interest in the eleven dimensions involved in the current string theories, and can even have some small grasp in the idea of a twelfth super dimension that holds the other eleven together. I can understand how a fourth dimensional object can be immersed in to a third dimensional space. I can understand how a butterfly in China can cause a hurricane in Florida, and I really love learning about all this stuff. But once you introduce the numbers involved, my brain evaporates in to a puff of smoke. I love fractals and all that goes with them. But the numbers mystify me.

I am at a complete loss at how my brain can deal with complex abstract subjects like those mentioned but can not deal with numbers.

When I see numbers, it's like I go dyslexic. They all just jumble up and do something funny.

[Munkay]

At the end of the Gospel of John, which Yeshua asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring Peter's three denials. I am not good at quoting scripture numbers, because I use a 1611 Commissioned King James writ in old english, and there are no scripture numbers or markers. I have other Bibles, but I tend to ignore the scripture tags.

It's not always the word it self that is important, but how it is used in the whole text. That's the problem translating in to English.

Some times, depending on how the word is used, it can mean an entire train of thought compressed in to a single word.

In particular, philia, a deep and powerful love between friends, which is one of the words used in this exchange.

Storge is also implied here, a familial love. Just because a word is not actually used doesn't mean that it is not there. Some times, you have to read between the lines and understand all of what is being said to gather the sense of what is being talked about. Descriptions of what is being said are just as important as actual words. People at that time would have known that anybody conversing would know what was being implied or intended... What they would not have known is that one day, it would lose so much in translation. And here is a great source of debate... We do not know all of the slang, all of the implications, all of the subtle nuances of what was being said way back when. So there is endless debate on what is actually being implied for so many conversations, and so many controversial Bible translations like the New Aplified Versions which take some (but not all) of these implied read between the lines concepts in to consideration.

Eros can also have many distinct meanings, meaning a passionate love toward God, toward family, toward a lover, and toward a platonic friendship. If you take eros at face value with out taking the rest of the conversation in to context, it can cause a lot of problems, and some very nasty scholars have used this particular angle to imply homosexual relations between the Twelve. Some times, it is not what is said, but how it is said as a whole conversation that is important.

Agape is of course used here.

A good read is CS Lewis The Four Loves.

It is also interesting to note, and most people do not know this, but Eros and Agape both have been used for sexual implications. Eros is of course the common, which is why it has a reputation, but the other is often a suprise for many. Neither are actually sexual or physical unless otherwise implied in supporting conversation.

Storge = affection friend family
Philia = brotherly love
Agape = All consuming love, a love worth dying for.
[right][snapback]97977[/snapback][/right]

Where are you getting your information about the ancient Greek Language, and specifically your information about the new testament in ancient Greek?

Storge, as you said, does not appear in the New Testament at all. But to say that it is "implied" in places appears to be a bit of a stretch. A search of the word Storge over the entire breadth of known ancient Greek texts reveals only 21 instances in which it was used. It's also rather ambiguous as to when Storge is used in place of philea, since philea also takes on the 'assumed' meaning of Storge in certain contexts.

In some senses you are correct about Agape, but I feel you may be a little off the path. Agape is a verb that like Storge, is barely used in ancient Greece. More or less it was given a specialized meaning by the authors of the New Testament. It seems that it is only after the proliferation of the New Testament that Agape is used more commonly throughout the Med. In other words, when understanding what was ment by Agape one can only look as far as its use in the Biblical text, not so much what it was used for afterwards. The usage of Agape in the Bible is the love of God. And you are correct that the love of God can share both aspects of being desirous/erotic as well as being Platonic/brotherly. But Agape in the biblical text is only desirous or Platonic love directed towards God. It is only in the sense that you can love God so much it is physically tangible that Agape is erotic.

So in sum, I generally agree with your summaries of the different types of 'love' used, with only the above mentioned... qualifications, if you will.


But as far as the problem with the word Love in English, I believe you contradict your own point:

You seem to say that in English much is lost, since our use of the word 'love' does not properly convey the three distinct types of love that occur in the New Testament.

But at the same time you criticize the translators who make literal translations of the verb without taking into context its usage (which I agree is a great criticism). There are cases where Eros is used to describe the relationship between the Apostles, and it is ment very differently than say the Eros that is used to describe the homosexual sinners in Corinthians Book I. The key is all in the context.

I'd argue that the English word love maintains the many different aspects of the ancient Greek words for love. I can say 'I love my brother' and I can say 'I love my girlfriend' or I could say 'I love having sex' and in each case the word Love is ment very differently. But how it is ment is understood through context.

The beauty of the ancient Greek in this specific case is lost not when it is translated into the English word for Love, but rather it is lost when the reader fails to take into account both the many meanings of love and the context in which it is being used.

True, hints about context can be better understood by using Agape, Philew, or Eraw, but as you said yourself, they can also be misleading (certainly the twelve Apostles did not lustfully desire eachother).

So to summarize my point: As I said in my first post, I agree that much is lost in the English. But I do not believe this is a great case for such a scenario. Love in English continues to contain, more or less, all the same meanings of the ancient Greek words for love. It's only when meanings shift or get lost that the beauty and the meaning of the original text gets lost.

If you want a great example, do some research on the word used to describe the "virgin" Mary. :wacko:

Cheers,

Munk

[Drasca]

When I see numbers, it's like I go dyslexic. They all just jumble up and do something funny.
[right][snapback]97991[/snapback][/right]

While I am far from an expert in mathematics, I believe this is because, as stated before, Math is a language. The 'numbers' and 'operations' of math (and I use these words loosely, because the English language is not direclty compatible with the mathematic) takes time and training to understand. A lot of people will not understand this language. It takes active training and work with someone that can teach you this language. To learn how to use, speak, and grasp the underpinnings solidly enough to do something more than copy-paste what's on the chalkboard takes an understanding that can only come from immersing yourself into the mathematic language and culture. I think there's just an invisible limit on how far you can go without someone else teaching you this language. The numbers don't and won't make sense without some formal education on them. Some will never make sense, but you'll only get a chance at figuring that out with training.

To be short, I'll reiterate: Math is a different language. The numbers you see aren't what those trained in the language do. F=ma and V=IR means nothing to someone with a basic understanding of English, let alone Physic's force equals mass times acceleration and Ohm's law volts equals current times resistence, and let's not begin with the oddball squiggly greek letters, subscripts, superscripts, myriad of symbols, flow diagrams, graphs and coordinate systems of all kinds, log tables, and operations that'd make your head spin and explode worse than beetlejuice. Or, maybe not. There are a few resident math majors and science professionals here. Maybe you'll end up one of them.

[Guest]

I guess what I was saying is too many theoretical physicists seem to be making their considerations and contemplations with respect to a mathimatical abstract of physics rather than with respect to physical reality.

You can do some nice work purely in the abstract. But when you look at the history of physics the great work comes when people think with respect to the actual medium of reality and use the abstract as a means of to verify and explain.

At least that is my observation.

[Occhidiangela]

I uh, use a different view I think. My apologies. On my screen, it's clear to me.
[right][snapback]97963[/snapback][/right]

For Pete, regarding "fair's fair:" I thought I had pointed my caffeine stained finger at Doc as well

In the interest of being taken seriously, ==snip snip==
Doc, quite sniggering over there, your posts aren't much more polished.
Occhi

However, in the interest of clarity on the topic of threaded versus unthreaded and "who the heck are you talking to?" issues, I offer the following.

For Doc:

When you don't use the quote function, all it takes to make sure people know to whom you are replying is to open your remarks with the name of the person, or persons, to whom you are replying.

Example: Occhi posts silly nonsense about politics

Doc's reply, threaded view or not: Occhi, you ignorant rogue, and so on.

Example 2: Ghostiger comments on evolution

Doc's reply: Ghostiger, you ignorant feline, and so on

How hard is that? It isn't.

Merry Christmas ;)

Occhi

[Alram]

An interesting refutation of the theory of evolution of man from apes

[Guest]

I still dont see why you originally addressed me on this subject.

This forum has always been done in threaded form(maybe there was an exception of a few weeks due to technical problems way back.) If you want to put the targets name in that nice, but its not required for the sake of clarity.

[--Pete]

Hi,

An interesting refutation of the theory of evolution of man from apes
[right][snapback]98039[/snapback][/right]

Great impartial source you quote: Answers in Genesis -- Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse.

As to all their QUIBBLES -- most are either old (and resolved) history, minority (and usually crackpot fundamentalists) alternative viewpoints, or outright lies. If you really want to find the answers, then search for them. Your ten second search followed by a cut and past link and post does not buy you a right to waste our time. The knowledge is out there -- go fish.

--Pete

[Rhydderch Hael]

...In the human female, the breasts stay full and large during her adult life, where in other mammals they only swell during times of nursing, and then shrink down to be out of the way.

Since the human female breasts stays large, it clearly stays there to be pleasing to the eye, to attract a mate. ...
[right][snapback]97896[/snapback][/right]

Actually, it may be a factor that the human female does not exhibit any external signs of estrus, a characteristic somewhat unique to the species. The end result is that males have no easy sign just when a female is fertile and is thus forced to form a social pairing that lasts long before or after estrus in order to ensure procreation.

[Occhidiangela]

I still dont see why you originally addressed me on this subject.

This forum has always been done in threaded form(maybe there was an exception of a few weeks due to technical problems way back.) If you want to put the targets name in that nice, but its not required for the sake of clarity.
[right][snapback]98040[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger:

The "whining maggot" approach scores you no points. It isn't all about you and your carelessness. The "put target's name in" method is both polite discourse, and aids clarity. It takes about a second to type in the name of who you are addressing. Why is that one second too much trouble for you?

Occhi

[Guest]

Edited.

[Assur]

It's a theory based on very partial evidence, which is often not even directly tied together. It does not account for many of it's links. Simplest example is how did the Neanderthals become extinct? Did modern man wipe them out? Where is the link between us and our direct ancestors? The Neanderthals won't tell us. Homo habilis and Homo erectus (unlike Homo pederastus, heh) lived from 1 to 2 million years ago, approximately and they were supposedly our direct ancestors. We then know that Homo sapiens appeared approximately 100,000 years ago and that's it. What happened in between? Evolution? God? Little green martians with a DNA splicer? We know nothing.
-A
[right][snapback]97969[/snapback][/right]

Well, Homo Erectus isn't in the our family tree anyway! The last common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus was Homo Ergaster.

Our family tree looks like this Homo Habilis>Homo Ergaster>Homo Heidelbergensis> Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are both descended from Homo Heidelbergensis.

Scientists have been looking for fossils only for the last 150 years and they are still finding new stuff which expands our knowledge.

As regards Intelligent Design, how do they explain nipples on men or the "intelligent design" which gave us the appendix?

[Doc]

Well, Homo Erectus isn't in the our family tree anyway! The last common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus was Homo Ergaster.

Our family tree looks like this Homo Habilis>Homo Ergaster>Homo Heidelbergensis> Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are both descended from Homo Heidelbergensis.

Scientists have been looking for fossils only for the last 150 years and they are still finding new stuff which expands our knowledge.

As regards Intelligent Design, how do they explain nipples on men or the "intelligent design" which gave us the appendix?
[right][snapback]98053[/snapback][/right]

Well, being able to invent nipple clamps would look pretty silly if you didn't have nipples.

[Guest]

I guess you can say anything.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, being able to invent nipple clamps would look pretty silly if you didn't have nipples.
[right][snapback]98054[/snapback][/right]

How about a New Year's resolution, Doc, the one where you resolve to quit playing the "dirty old man" card with relentless monotony? :rolleyes:

I realize that might be like asking me to give up caffeine, :unsure: but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Edited.
[right][snapback]98046[/snapback][/right]

GT and I have taken it to PM, which is where I should have gone with this in the first place.

My bad. :(

Occhi