Jihadi parents sent 7 year-old daughter on suicide bombing mission

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Debillw3

The problem is that even with enough education, that’s still the case.

A word for word translation of these texts is impossible. Even in English, as we know and speak it, words can carry multiple definitions that have the same basis but overall different meanings.

What results is a need for interpretation, based on what we believe that’s being said. In the cases of the likes of English, we’re either native speakers or surrounded by native speakers, so that interpretation is easy to come to consensus on (in many cases, we do it subconsciously).

With classical languages, we don’t have that luxury. We’re left with a need to essentially guess about what’s being said, based on context and the historical customs with which we’re familiar. Even then, it’s not necessarily a guarantee that we’ll come to the same conclusion as anyone else.

The one with which I’m most intimately familiar is from the Old Testament–my belief, as well as that of many scholars, is that Eve bit into a pomegranate, rather than an apple. Overall, it’s inconsequential, but, at the same time, it serves to highlight the issues that plague these texts.

My mistake was thinking that learning a language would include learning a bit about the context in which it was written as well but I can see how that’s not possible if we go back far enough.

[Two_Many_Cats]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

The timeline makes no sense. You’d said:

This was two posts before I started replying this morning and far before her Trump post. Unless you’re Merlin or something I don’t get the timeline you want me to believe. Are you perhaps a psychic and knew she was going to make the Trump statement in the future? Then shouldn’t you have said “Who’s going to be extrapolating here in a little bit, doofus?” because that damned sure looks like you’re calling her a doofus about you know, the statement you were replying to.

She mentioned Donald Trump’s name after I used the term “doofus”, but she extrapolated when she said, and I quote, “If we avoid the fate of the European Jews, we will be lucky.” That is an extrapolation, and THAT is what I was replying to when I said, “Who’s extrapolating now, doofus?” Now, do you see? She even admitted to the extrapolation in her Donald Trump post.

Fine! I misinterpreted this Syrian couple’s motives when I posted originally. But I was NOT the one who extrapolated AFTER calling people who extrapolate stupid.

Can we get back to our original programming now?

[Debillw3]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

My mistake was thinking that learning a language would include learning a bit about the context in which it was written as well but I can see how that’s not possible if we go back far enough.

The operative wording is “a bit”.

Keep in mind that idioms and metaphors aren’t recent inventions.

Even with the capacity to learn the language, a large majority of people don’t have enough time in their day to learn enough of the nuances and subtleties in those speech patterns, let alone every detail of their culture & customs that would’ve been pervasive in their writing.

With regard to the Quran in general, what I remember reading (and I could be wrong) is that the translation often attributed to “virgins” likely meant “grapes” or “raisins”, as they were seen as a delicacy and given to guests upon arrival in their home.

That factoid, assuming it’s accurate on its face & that I’m not misremembering or misunderstanding what I read, isn’t one that would necessarily come with a cursory (or even mildly thorough) lesson on the language. When you multiply that by the number of similar pieces of trivia you’d need to know, as well as all the history you need to know for the sake of examining religious texts beyond language translation (the basis on which I drew my aforementioned “pomegranate” conclusion), we’re talking about knowledge that would be held almost solely by those carrying a doctorate in the very specific fields.

The rest of us ultimately have no choice but to rely upon their translations, as we don’t have a chance at gaining that level of knowledge for ourselves.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Two_Many_Cats

She mentioned Donald Trump’s name after I used the term “doofus”, but she extrapolated when she said, and I quote, “If we avoid the fate of the European Jews, we will be lucky.” That is an extrapolation, and THAT is what I was replying to when I said, “Who’s extrapolating now, doofus?” Now, do you see? She even admitted to the extrapolation in her Donald Trump post.

Fine! I misinterpreted this Syrian couple’s motives when I posted originally. But I was NOT the one who extrapolated AFTER calling people who extrapolate stupid.

Can we get back to our original programming now?

Right and her saying that about the European Jews was said said in response to your calling her a snot. That’s what I was clearing up as you stated I was wrong for saying what I said and like I said if I am wrong then I damned sure want to know it and clear up the record. Thank you for clearing up that I had not mistyped and that it was indeed the response that I was referencing that you were talking about.

Now, absolutely we can return to our original programming as far as I’m conerned.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Debillw3

The operative wording is “a bit”.

Keep in mind that idioms and metaphors aren’t recent inventions.

Even with the capacity to learn the language, a large majority of people don’t have enough time in their day to learn enough of the nuances and subtleties in those speech patterns, let alone every detail of their culture & customs that would’ve been pervasive in their writing.

With regard to the Quran in general, what I remember reading (and I could be wrong) is that the translation often attributed to “virgins” likely meant “grapes” or “raisins”, as they were seen as a delicacy and given to guests upon arrival in their home.

That factoid, assuming it’s accurate on its face & that I’m not misremembering or misunderstanding what I read, isn’t one that would necessarily come with a cursory (or even mildly thorough) lesson on the language. When you multiply that by the number of similar pieces of trivia you’d need to know, as well as all the history you need to know for the sake of examining religious texts beyond language translation (the basis on which I drew my aforementioned “pomegranate” conclusion), we’re talking about knowledge that would be held almost solely by those carrying a doctorate in the very specific fields.

The rest of us ultimately have no choice but to rely upon their translations, as we don’t have a chance at gaining that level of knowledge for ourselves.

I can see why it was changed then. I don’t see many modern day folks blowing themselves up for a bunch of grapes or raisins.

I agree with your statement that it would take a doctorate in very specific fields to begin truly understand what was the original meanings of said texts are and this is why I don’t really take any of it literally and realize that even what I do take from them are seen through a very thick lens of my own modern sensibilities which I’m quite sure they did not share. They did seem to share certain ideals as most religions are quite similar in their beliefs of spiritual things. The differences seem to be in the rules that they choose to follow based on these beliefs.

I’ve heard a pretty convincing rationale about why that is from a north vietnamese buddhist monk. Well, from an interpreter who translated what the man said to me and vice versa. For all I know he could have been saying eat pomegranites.