Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 12:51:43 GMT -5
Sorry Dennis But the tangent we went off on does have some relevance to the multi linguists - maybe someone can tell us what those passages say in other languages
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 5, 2015 15:11:55 GMT -5
Maybe his feet were dirty :) Oh that is it. I can't see how I overlooked that phrase as a criticism of Uriah's hygiene! First, it is not my interpretation - I just brought up some ideas following Bob's post. I am familiar with a number of writings that try very hard not to let the characters in the bible be too human. Of course, this was simply a parable talking about the Jewish nation's conduct.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 5, 2015 15:20:23 GMT -5
I feel Thread Morphers would be more accurate. After all, the understanding of the use of idioms and determining the intended figurative meaning as opposed to the literal meaning is all part of understanding what people mean. Even those who wrote 5,000 years ago. Besides, I am still waiting for the answer to your question: How many does Koine Greek have?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 17:52:56 GMT -5
Interesting. In Bible times the euphemism for "sleeping" with someone was "washing his feet". Makes one wonder about some passages. What?! In Bible times, washing someone's feet meant ... literally ... washing their feet! When some sexual matter is a subject of conversation in the Old Testament, a euphemism or a figure of speech is often used to refer to the matter. Thus, for example, the term foot/feet is sometimes used to refer to the male genitals (for example, when the Old Testament refers to Saul going into a cave and uncovering his foot). Read more at www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2002/02/When-Foot-Means-Something-Else-Euphemisms-In-The-Bible.aspx#FDerwTwLFQhexEw3.99Doesn't take a lot of imagination.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 17:55:44 GMT -5
What?! In Bible times, washing someone's feet meant ... literally ... washing their feet! Are you sure? 2 Samuel 11: Verse 8 - And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.Verse 11 - And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.Seems that Uriah understood the euphemism. And then there is the verse in Ruth: Ruth 3:4 - It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do.Have to wonder what needs to be done after 'feet' are uncovered. Could feet also be a euphemism for male genitalia?That is indeed the euphemism.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 5, 2015 17:56:45 GMT -5
Thus, for example, the term foot/feet is sometimes used to refer to the male genitals (for example, when the Old Testament refers to Saul going into a cave and uncovering his foot). Doesn't take a lot of imagination. :) Trying to imagine what style of shoe would be needed requires a lot of imagination!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 17:58:25 GMT -5
Are you sure? 2 Samuel 11: Verse 8 - And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.Verse 11 - And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.Seems that Uriah understood the euphemism. And then there is the verse in Ruth: Ruth 3:4 - It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do.Have to wonder what needs to be done after 'feet' are uncovered. Could feet also be a euphemism for male genitalia? Seems to me like you're looking for something that isn't there I wasn't looking for anything. It was part of my "reading" education.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 18:07:34 GMT -5
Why would David tell Uriah to wash his feet? Why did Ruth uncover a man's feet and then wait for him to tell her what to do? Why would he pay her (n grain) afterwards? And this doesn't even touch on the Song of Songs! The people who wrote the bible were human. They wrote human stories. And they were lusty! Maybe his feet were dirty As for Ruth, I believe she literally lay down on the ground at his feet, like it says he "turned himself: and behold, a woman lay at his feet". He woke up and saw her there. Then he called her "a virtuous woman" which he'd hardly have done if your interpretation was correct. He didn't pay her either, he gave her a gift of barley because he knew she needed it. It says in the last chapter of the book of Ruth, that Boaz took her and she was his wife, and he went in unto her etc - no mention of feet. Are you familiar with "Strange Scriptures that Perplex the Western Mind" ? Here is a quotation from that book: [Lying at the Feet (Ruth 3:7-14). Ruth, when reaping in the field of Boaz, went to the resting place of Boaz, uncovered his feet, and lying crosswise, covered herself with his cloak or skirt, a custom common all over the East. By doing so, Ruth just placed herself under the protection of Boaz; later she asked Boaz to spread his skirt over her. She only asked him to acknowledge her right to his protection. Boaz replied, “I will do to thee all that thou requirest, for all the city doth know that thou art a virtuous women. If thy kinsman will not take thee to wife, I will.” This same custom is referred to in Ezekiel 16:8: “I will spread my skirt over thee, and thou becomest mine.”] The lady who wrote that book is not as educated in linguistic matters as she thinks she is.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 18:16:20 GMT -5
Sorry Dennis But the tangent we went off on does have some relevance to the multi linguists - maybe someone can tell us what those passages say in other languages Unfortunately, someone who isn't well advanced in ancient language studies will not even think to translate a phrase like "washing his feet" to "giving him s ....." in English. Example: A fellow I know told someone in French the literal translation of this: "She drove me right up the wall." The whole room laughed their sides sore.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 18:19:06 GMT -5
Thus, for example, the term foot/feet is sometimes used to refer to the male genitals (for example, when the Old Testament refers to Saul going into a cave and uncovering his foot). Doesn't take a lot of imagination. Trying to imagine what style of shoe would be needed requires a lot of imagination! They come in a couple of sizes.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 5, 2015 18:24:29 GMT -5
So...How many are fluent multi linguists here?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 18:51:10 GMT -5
So...How many are fluent multi linguists here? FWIW, a person who speaks more than one language is not necessarily skilled in linguistics. I know people who have native-like fluency in three languages, but know nothing about linguistics (the science of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and historical linguistics). If it's any help to anyone, I have a 4-year degree in "Linguistics".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 18:52:20 GMT -5
So...How many are fluent multi linguists here? FWIW, a person who speaks more than one language is not necessarily skilled in linguistics. I know people who have native-like fluency in three languages, but know nothing about linguistics (the science of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and historical linguistics). If it's any help to anyone, I have a 4-year degree in "Linguistics". The only 2 languages I am professionally fluent and competent in are French and English.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 5, 2015 19:02:46 GMT -5
The lady who wrote that book is not as educated in linguistic matters as she thinks she is. She's a graduate of Bob Jones University.She outlook could be biased. It seems to be a conservative protestant university. A recent disclosure stated: “I was abused from the ages of 6 to 14 by my grandfather,” one respondent said. “When I went for counseling I was told: ‘Did you repent for your part of the abuse? Did your body respond favorably?’ ” The person reported being told by a university official that going to the police “tore your family apart, and that’s your fault,” and “you love yourself more than you love God.”
Another person said that at Bob Jones, “abuse victims are considered ‘second-rate Christians.’ ” And another said that university staff consistently told victims “that they bore the sin of bitterness and that they should not report abusers.” At least their position is clear. It sounds like a 'party school'.The publication is interesting - the title page has the author as BARBARA M. BROWN but the introduction is signed Barbara M. Bowen.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 5, 2015 19:08:21 GMT -5
FWIW, a person who speaks more than one language is not necessarily skilled in linguistics. I know people who have native-like fluency in three languages, but know nothing about linguistics (the science of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and historical linguistics). If it's any help to anyone, I have a 4-year degree in "Linguistics". The only 2 languages I am professionally fluent and competent in are French and English. Yes, the terminology here can mean varying things to different people, making me hesitant to say that I am "fluent" in Marshallese. I speak it better than any of the other workers who studied it (4 or 5 of us altogether), and better than many of the other Americans who were out there at the time I was, and the Marshallese people often complemented me on how well I spoke their language. But! They could start telling stories and lose me in an instant! So, even though I use the language professionally (document translation), I have always preferred to say I am conversant in Marshallese, which to me doesn't sound like I am assuming too much. Bob's term, "professionally fluent and competent in," would work. I also use the term "linguist" with reservation, knowing the academic meaning, and having nothing beyond a general interest and a one-semester, introductory course in linguistics. People like me, who enjoy and pick up languages relatively easily, are often referred to as "linguists," and the companies for whom I translate also refer to me and other translators as "linguists." but I regard these as rather inaccurate usages of the term.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 23:06:54 GMT -5
The lady who wrote that book is not as educated in linguistic matters as she thinks she is. She's a graduate of Bob Jones University.She outlook could be biased. Graduating there automatically means biased. Explains everything. Seems to be?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 23:13:49 GMT -5
The only 2 languages I am professionally fluent and competent in are French and English. Yes, the terminology here can mean varying things to different people, making me hesitant to say that I am "fluent" in Marshallese. I speak it better than any of the other workers who studied it (4 or 5 of us altogether), and better than many of the other Americans who were out there at the time I was, and the Marshallese people often complemented me on how well I spoke their language. But! They could start telling stories and lose me in an instant! So, even though I use the language professionally (document translation), I have always preferred to say I am conversant in Marshallese, which to me doesn't sound like I am assuming too much. Bob's term, "professionally fluent and competent in," would work. I also use the term "linguist" with reservation, knowing the academic meaning, and having nothing beyond a general interest and a one-semester, introductory course in linguistics. People like me, who enjoy and pick up languages relatively easily, are often referred to as "linguists," and the companies for whom I translate also refer to me and other translators as "linguists." but I regard these as rather inaccurate usages of the term. Alan, you and I have had enough discussions about language that I would class you as much a student of linguistics as you are of language. Remember, not understanding everyone who speaks a language doesn't mean you aren't fluent. I've listened to some native English-speaking people in this town and not been able to understand a thing they were saying.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 6, 2015 6:17:06 GMT -5
Alan, you and I have had enough discussions about language that I would class you as much a student of linguistics as you are of language. Remember, not understanding everyone who speaks a language doesn't mean you aren't fluent. I've listened to some native English-speaking people in this town and not been able to understand a thing they were saying. They're lotsa fun anyway!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 6:42:19 GMT -5
I can't see any reason why that source would be any more credible than mine, so we'll have to agree to totally disagree on this euphemism
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 6, 2015 8:29:47 GMT -5
I can't see any reason why that source would be any more credible than mine, so we'll have to agree to totally disagree on this euphemism ::) Your source is over 70 years old. It is possible that additional information has surfaced regarding the use of idioms/euphoniums in the bible. The author of your source was also educated in a very conservative Protestant unaccredited university. One must consider that her view could be biased and her information may not be as broad as it could be. I would also question the fact that she included no references to support her claims. In short it presents nothing that can be verified and is little more than a 149 page blog of her unsupported beliefs/opinions. There are some reasons. BTW - have you read it?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 6, 2015 18:45:04 GMT -5
I can't see any reason why that source would be any more credible than mine, so we'll have to agree to totally disagree on this euphemism That may say something about your religious leanings.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 6, 2015 18:50:47 GMT -5
Thus, for example, the term foot/feet is sometimes used to refer to the male genitals (for example, when the Old Testament refers to Saul going into a cave and uncovering his foot). Doesn't take a lot of imagination. Trying to imagine what style of shoe would be needed requires a lot of imagination! There's a little shop in Amsterdam I once visited...
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 6, 2015 19:27:33 GMT -5
Trying to imagine what style of shoe would be needed requires a lot of imagination! There's a little shop in Amsterdam I once visited... They were impressed. They put a series of photos on the wall...well, walls to be honest. It was only about a 3m X 3m shop. I think this thread may have left the tracks for good this time!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 6, 2015 20:23:36 GMT -5
Maybe his feet were dirty :) A lot of dirty feet in the bible! Not unlike the wealthy 'John' who gives the lady of the evening a car because she needed one.Nope - no need. It was not the usual coupling of man and wife. Are you familiar with "Strange Scriptures that Perplex the Western Mind" ? Here is a quotation from that book: [Lying at the Feet (Ruth 3:7-14). Ruth, when reaping in the field of Boaz, went to the resting place of Boaz, uncovered his feet, and lying crosswise, covered herself with his cloak or skirt, a custom common all over the East. By doing so, Ruth just placed herself under the protection of Boaz; later she asked Boaz to spread his skirt over her. She only asked him to acknowledge her right to his protection. Boaz replied, “I will do to thee all that thou requirest, for all the city doth know that thou art a virtuous women. If thy kinsman will not take thee to wife, I will.” This same custom is referred to in Ezekiel 16:8: “I will spread my skirt over thee, and thou becomest mine.”] [/quote] He did call her a virtuous woman but then she left early in the morning, before it was light enough for anyone to know who she was. I think they had something to hide. As you quoted above: Ruth "...went to the resting place of Boaz, uncovered his feet, and lying crosswise, covered herself with his cloak or skirt, a custom common all over the East." Look at the physics of the situation. Laying crosswise at the feet of a sleeping person how do you cover yourself with their cloak/skirt unless it had a substantial train! Maybe his 'feet' were much closer to his waist! Why would Ruth wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in her best clothes just to pay a social call? I am leaning toward the version that has not been bowdlerized!
|
|