\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
    June    
2023
SMTWTFS
    
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
Archive RSS
SPONSORED LINKS
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/profile/blog/tgifisher77/month/6-1-2023
Rated: 18+ · Book · Biographical · #2257228
Tales from real life
Well, if they're not true, they oughta be!
June 29, 2023 at 9:27pm
June 29, 2023 at 9:27pm
#1051888

Trigger Warning:   Reading this post may cause thought to occur.

Have you actually read the bible?

If so, I commend your scholarship. Few among us have put in the effort to become fluent in classical Greek and ancient Hebrew.

Oh, you meant you've read the English version of the Bible. Well, that's still something to be proud of. Most people haven't even cracked the cover.

So, which version did you read? After all, there are more than 100 English translations available, starting with the venerable King James, first published in 1611. There were earlier underground English language versions. William Tyndale was executed in 1536 for publishing a 'protestant' bible. And, though Henry VIII authorized the first official Church of England translation, the King James was the first English translation to be officially authorized, published openly, and widely distributed. It's a good translation, both literate and accurate, and it became the best-selling book in history.

Many, many English translations followed, and the King James itself has been updated several times. The Authorized Version became the Revised Version in 1885, the American Standard Version in 1901, the Revised Standard Version in 1952, the New Revised Standard Version in 1989, and the English Standard Version in 2001. The goal of these revisions was to correct obvious translation errors and typos, and to clarify difficult passages while preserving the 'feel' of the original text. The Revised Standard Version is still a satisfying read that gives a feeling of traditional pomp and circumstance. Some fundamentalists, however, do not accept any of these revisions and continue to consider the King James translation to be the only 'true' bible.

Of course, the point of a translation is to make the original text accessible to more people. Some do a better job than others with readability. The Living Bible attempts to paraphrase the 'difficult' text with modern English usage, and the Simple English Bible took this trend to an extreme by using only a 3000-word vocabulary. The Children's Bible even used a comic book format. Other English translations took a more scholarly approach and returned to the older Greek and Hebrew sources to create an all-new text. One of the best, in my personal opinion, is the New Jerusalem Bible. It contains a large number of footnotes that give alternate translation choices and the reasons behind the choice that was ultimately published. Fun fact: My copy of the New Jerusalem Bible lists J. R. R. Tolkien as an original contributor. It's excellent for bible study, but I have to admit that the RSV may be better suited for spiritual reading as footnotes can be distracting.

Still, as good as it may be, an English translation is no more the 'real' bible than English is the 'real' language of the Sunday liturgy. The Latin Vulgate, along with Tyndale's translation, served as a guide when the Greek and Hebrew texts were translated anew for the King James version. The Latin Vulgate was the official bible of the Christian Church for more than 1500 years, and Latin was the official language of the liturgy during that period. Even today, some Roman Catholics still prefer to hold services in Latin rather than English. But it was only in 1545, at the Council of Trent, that the Vulgate was declared the official bible of the Holy Church. Presumably, this was in response to the protestant bibles produced by Martin Luther and William Tyndale in the 'common' languages of German and English. Today, common sense (mostly) prevails. Both the bible and the Sunday liturgy are presented in the local language, wherever and whatever that may be.

The Latin Vulgate itself was initially criticized for being too common. In fact, the modern word 'vulgar' comes from the Latin root 'vulgate'. It made the Christian Mystery too accessible. Even a barely literate roman peasant could read St. Jerome's Latin translation. Well educated people in 400 CE knew that the real language of scripture was Greek or Hebrew. And, just as English wasn't the language of the medieval church, Latin wasn't the language of Moses or the apostles. Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament and the Jewish hierarchy. Most of the common people spoke Aramaic, and it's almost certain that Jesus used Aramaic to speak to the crowds.

We don't have any bible texts from the time of Jesus (and not many from the previous 1000 years, either). The earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from 326 CE and the oldest fragments date from the early 100's (some Old Testament fragments date from 600 BCE). It's generally accepted that the New Testament gospels were written at least twenty years after the resurrection, and some were written as late as 100 CE. And the gospels were actually written in Greek rather than Aramaic or Hebrew. Perhaps because the Jewish authorities didn't approve of Christianity.

So, to read the 'real' bible, you'd have to be able to read classical Greek and ancient Hebrew. And even then, you'd be out of luck because there are no original manuscripts available. And when someone quibbles about the 'red letter' words of Jesus in their King James Bible, keep their provenance in mind. The words were originally spoken in Aramaic, written down in classical Greek, translated into Latin, and finally published in 17th century English. And even that 'literally true' text has been revised several times since. Perhaps it would be better to focus on the point of the parable rather than the exact words. After all, no one living today has read any portion of the real bible.

June 20, 2023 at 1:51pm
June 20, 2023 at 1:51pm
#1051380

This is a bit late for Father's Day, or maybe it's early for next year. At any rate, here are some Dadisms I heard in my childhood, sixty years ago. I hope they give you a chuckle. And if they don't tickle your funny bone, you can just say, "That's funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha.

Sarcasm and insults were just part of the game at our house. Anyone, everyone, or no one in particular might serve as the butt of the joke. It might not have been the best example for interpersonal relationships, but it was always entertaining. And most of the time, these comments were merely about delivering a funny line rather than real criticism. *Whistle*




Ridiculous threats were good for a laugh:

"I'll stomp a mudhole in your ass, and then I'll stomp it dry!"

"I'll tear you arm off and beat you with the bloody stump!"

"If I want any shit out of you I'll unscrew your head and dip it out with a spoon!"

"I'll kick your butt til it barks like a fox, and then I'll kick it for barking!"


A person's intelligence (or lack thereof) was also a common target:

"If he was half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is."

"She'd have to double her IQ just to be a half-wit."

"He talks a lot, but he doesn't say much."

"She couldn't find her ass with both hands."

"He couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if he was standing inside!"

"Are you wise? . . . Or otherwise?"

"If brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your own nose!"

"If brains were gasoline, he couldn't power a piss-ant's motorcycle around the inside of a cheerio."

"She's as sharp as a marble."

"When they passed out brains, he thought they said pains and hid behind the door."


And of course, appearances had to be noted because:

"Beauty may be skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone."

"His face reminds me of the south end of a northbound mule."

"When they passed out noses, he thought they said roses and said 'A large red one please'."

"She's a real cowgirl, but a little more cow than girl.

"If my dog had a face like that, I'd shave his ass and make him walk backwards."


When we got pouty, Dad might say:

"You don't have to go away mad, just go away."

"She'll get over it in a little while or else she'll be mad for a long time."

"Be careful, you might trip on that lip."

"I feel for you, but I can't quite reach you."


There were also lines for the less than welcome guest:

"Do you have to go already? Come back again when you can't stay so long."

"Sure, I can help you out, just let me get your coat."

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."


For an awkward stumble or dropping a plate, Dad might say:

"As graceful as a ruptured duck."

"Just throw it away if you don't want it!"


Dad would sometimes get a chuckle out of asking us

"Are you good & kind? . . . Good for nothing and kind of dumb?"


If we asked him to wait for us, he'd reply:

"Weight is what broke the camel's back."


If we asked him where we could sit, he'd say:

"Just sit on your thumb and let your feet hang over."


If Dad was unimpressed with our jokes, he'd say:

"That's funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha.


June 19, 2023 at 10:08am
June 19, 2023 at 10:08am
#1051317


If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then cliche is the sincerest form of plagiarism.

As a writer, do you ever pause and wonder if what you have to say is original? I'm not talking about conscious plagiarism, but the usage of words and phrases that we all share to form a common understanding. The mashed-up quote above occurred to me this morning and I thought it was clever enough to share. It begins with a phrase that everyone knows. The phrase is seldom attributed to Oscar Wilde, because it's become such a cliche. Is it plagiarism for me to use his words in this way, or have they become public domain through overuse? Have I added enough of my own content to make a new original? Am I even the first one to write down the second phrase?

Not really. An internet search reveals that William Ralph Inge said “Trite phrases and hackneyed sentiments are often the sincerest form of plagiarism.” You haven't heard of the 'gloomy dean', Anglican priest and author, thrice nominated for a Nobel prize in literature? Me neither, until today.

So now I've got a phrase that everyone 'knows' isn't original followed by a thought that isn't nearly as original as I'd hoped. I didn't intentionally plagiarize Inge, but what if I didn't have access to the internet? I'd never have known. And the question still remains, is my juxtaposition of the two phrases at all original?

Is anything original anymore? As the body of published material grows, it becomes ever more difficult to come up with something that is truly unique. Everything we think has likely already been thought. Every word we write has probably been written by someone else at some point. We learn from parents, teachers, books, movies, and idle conversation. Our entire heritage is source material. To be 100% honest, we'd have to credit the Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Google as co-author for every poem and story.

So why even try? Because I can't help myself. And maybe someday, somehow, I'll create something worthwhile that I can call my own.



June 7, 2023 at 2:12pm
June 7, 2023 at 2:12pm
#1050747

The failed one-term, ex-president opened his 2024 campaign with a vow to 'get even' with everyone who's ever opposed the MAGA mob. "I am your retribution!" he ranted to gleeful applause. I fully expected him to break into a chant of 'hang Mike Pence'.

Shortly after, his co-conspirators in congress went on a rant against Merrick Garland, accusing the Attorney General of conducting a personal vendetta against those who blocked his nomination to the Supreme Court. 'Pot' Jim Jordan and 'kettle' James Comer tried to make a case that Donald Trump should be protected from prosecution due to executive privilege, while simultaneously using their oversight committee as a weapon against Joe Biden.

I'm looking forward to the real retribution, the filing of conspiracy charges against the MAGA mobsters. Most members of the so-called Freedom Caucus were revealed as co-conspirators by the January 6th committee. The crime of conspiracy to commit seditious insurrection has already been established in court. The little guys are already in prison. The man in charge of prosecuting the 'big dogs' has legitimate reason to get even with them. And Merrick Garland has right on his side. He's perfect for the role of avenging angel, wreaking retribution on the corrupt politicians who threaten our democracy. Is it any wonder that Jim Jordan, James Comer, and the rest of the MAGA co-conspirators are crapping their pants?



© Copyright 2024 Words Whirling 'Round (UN: tgifisher77 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Words Whirling 'Round has granted Writing.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.

Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/profile/blog/tgifisher77/month/6-1-2023