C
cirisme
Guest
But all the other grammer errors I make are perfectly acceptable. 
BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
In English it is wrong. In Greek a double negative asserts a specific point or stresses the negation. In French, it is actually a single negative, the second half specifies the type of negation (pas = default, rien = anything, jamais = ever, etc., so it would be not, nothing, never respectively).
Brother Vinny
Active member
I agree with you, JackS. Here in Tulsa, the PETA folks put a billboard up with a bearded figure (God? Moses?) dressed all in white holding a bunch of carrots with the caption, "I said, 'Thou shalt not KILL!' " As if capital punishment and animal sacrifices weren't both commanded just chapters later.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Paul,
According to PETA Jesus was also a vegetarian.
Right in line with
John 21:13 KJV Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
dont ya think
According to PETA Jesus was also a vegetarian.
Right in line with
John 21:13 KJV Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
dont ya think
Brother Vinny
Active member
That's it! That's the billboard!
drdeutsch
New member
Well, Jaltus,
If grammar mavens say that people shouldn't use double negatives, it is because that is prescriptive grammar, not descriptive grammar.
If someone always says "not hardly" then it is no longer an error -- it is a rule. Much like there are no grammatical errors in Inner City English (i.e. Black English): It is completely consistent in it's use, thus it is grammatical.
Not to mention that "not hardly" is practically an idiom, and idioms, whether "grammatical" or not, pretty much have their own rules.
Take "I can't get no satisfaction." You would probably argue that this means "I can get satisfaction" because the two negatives cancel each other out. Wrong! No one on earth would say, after receiving a plentiful amount of satisfaction, "Gee! I can't get no satisfaction!" No, the meaning is quite clear.
Anyway, I would highly recommend that book. The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, Ph.D. at MIT. I think it is chapter 12 where he deals with double negatives.
By the way, I do love prescriptive grammar, as well, and no, I don't use no double negatives. I am, however, compelled as a hopeful linguist, to study descriptive grammar and it's consistency and use.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
If grammar mavens say that people shouldn't use double negatives, it is because that is prescriptive grammar, not descriptive grammar.
If someone always says "not hardly" then it is no longer an error -- it is a rule. Much like there are no grammatical errors in Inner City English (i.e. Black English): It is completely consistent in it's use, thus it is grammatical.
Not to mention that "not hardly" is practically an idiom, and idioms, whether "grammatical" or not, pretty much have their own rules.
Take "I can't get no satisfaction." You would probably argue that this means "I can get satisfaction" because the two negatives cancel each other out. Wrong! No one on earth would say, after receiving a plentiful amount of satisfaction, "Gee! I can't get no satisfaction!" No, the meaning is quite clear.
Anyway, I would highly recommend that book. The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, Ph.D. at MIT. I think it is chapter 12 where he deals with double negatives.
By the way, I do love prescriptive grammar, as well, and no, I don't use no double negatives. I am, however, compelled as a hopeful linguist, to study descriptive grammar and it's consistency and use.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
drdeutsch
New member
And it depends on what is defined as "standard." Obviously, Standard American English prescriptive grammar would say "no double negatives," "no split infinitives," and "no dangling participles."
However, if they are used consistently, then they are no longer grammatical errors; rather, they are rules of the language itself, whether that language is used by 1 person or 1 million.
Dr. Deutsch
themuzicman
Well-known member
We ain't not gonna have no double negatives 'round here nohow.
Triple negatives, on the other hand....
Michael
Triple negatives, on the other hand....
Michael
Which version of the King James? They've changed it over the years to reflect more modern English. I don't mean the 'New' KJV, rather, the original KJ version has some changes from the current 'KJV" text.
I think they have an 'original' photostat of the 1600's version you can buy.
There's a point of contention I use the 'original' KJV to prove something about Dan 9, they had a semi-colon ; which has been replaced to blur the seperation between the 7 and the 62 (not relevant here, but the change made a difference to more than just 'modernizing' the book).
I think they have an 'original' photostat of the 1600's version you can buy.
There's a point of contention I use the 'original' KJV to prove something about Dan 9, they had a semi-colon ; which has been replaced to blur the seperation between the 7 and the 62 (not relevant here, but the change made a difference to more than just 'modernizing' the book).
Last edited:
Revelation717
New member
Hoo- wee, ain't noone read nufin' round here an' ol Jaltus done gone an got himself eleben votes!
Ain't nobody hadn't even posted nufin' yet. We ain't even seen da firs roun' an ol J-dog whoopin' some tail. Hoo wee!
I bet that Mr. J can jus not post nufin fer da entire tein (10) rouns 'en he'da still be a stompin and hollerin' over s 23 -57-93 22- 64 -86 -21 -11 -34 -62 (hoo wee look at all dem negetories
-57, -93, -86, -21, -11, -34, -62)
Ain't nobody even looked ober da ebidense.
We shuld jus change this baddle to how many licks does it take to get to da ceter of that ol' toosie pop.
- Mark Twain was a genius-:noid:
Ain't nobody hadn't even posted nufin' yet. We ain't even seen da firs roun' an ol J-dog whoopin' some tail. Hoo wee!
I bet that Mr. J can jus not post nufin fer da entire tein (10) rouns 'en he'da still be a stompin and hollerin' over s 23 -57-93 22- 64 -86 -21 -11 -34 -62 (hoo wee look at all dem negetories
-57, -93, -86, -21, -11, -34, -62)
Ain't nobody even looked ober da ebidense.
We shuld jus change this baddle to how many licks does it take to get to da ceter of that ol' toosie pop.
- Mark Twain was a genius-:noid:
Last edited:
textman
New member
On Never Quite Knowing Enough
On Never Quite Knowing Enough
+
> On 26Sept02 sarah073076 of texas wrote: Why is it that there
> are so many versions of the bible? I mean the stuff started
> way before I was born and now it seems that it is going to
> continue for my child and that scares me. Truely does, it is
> like we don't even give God a chance to speak in our lives
> without have a bunch of bs shoved down our throat. Don't get
> me wrong I do believe in God but for the most part religions
> only confuse me. I do believe that He will always let me
> know through a simple thought or a person that he is there.
> love your self and love your neighbor. -- sarah hansen
.
textman replies: Hi sarah. The only practical solution to your
problem is for you to abandon your fear (it is entirely ground-
less), and to then learn to love the incredible richness,
diversity, depth, and (above all) complexity of the Word of
God. After all, if the Faith is both rational and irrational
at the same time, both simple and confusing at the same time,
how can the bible (and the rest of creation too) be otherwise?
.
And do not be so hard on the translators and bible-makers;
for they are trying with all their meager might to get it
right. This despite being severely handicapped by two major
impediments: (1) they have a great deal to learn about the
early texts and their collective history; ie. they are very
extremely ignorant SOB's! And (2) they are unable to get over
the absurdly ridiculous notion that the canonical format (which
almost ALL translations adhere to) is itself somehow divine and
inspired and not to be trifled with under any circumstances!!!
.
Therefore readers of the bible (like you and me) are made into
the slaves of corrupt and ignorant Christian Scribes&Pharisees,
and thus willfully deprived of any opportunity to read and
experience the Word as the earliest Greek-speaking believers
did (ie. with their hearts as well as with their heads).
.
- the almost ancient one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Men who love wisdom must inquire into very many things."
-- Heraclitus (ancient Greek philosopher from way back when)
x
On Never Quite Knowing Enough
+
> On 26Sept02 sarah073076 of texas wrote: Why is it that there
> are so many versions of the bible? I mean the stuff started
> way before I was born and now it seems that it is going to
> continue for my child and that scares me. Truely does, it is
> like we don't even give God a chance to speak in our lives
> without have a bunch of bs shoved down our throat. Don't get
> me wrong I do believe in God but for the most part religions
> only confuse me. I do believe that He will always let me
> know through a simple thought or a person that he is there.
> love your self and love your neighbor. -- sarah hansen
.
textman replies: Hi sarah. The only practical solution to your
problem is for you to abandon your fear (it is entirely ground-
less), and to then learn to love the incredible richness,
diversity, depth, and (above all) complexity of the Word of
God. After all, if the Faith is both rational and irrational
at the same time, both simple and confusing at the same time,
how can the bible (and the rest of creation too) be otherwise?
.
And do not be so hard on the translators and bible-makers;
for they are trying with all their meager might to get it
right. This despite being severely handicapped by two major
impediments: (1) they have a great deal to learn about the
early texts and their collective history; ie. they are very
extremely ignorant SOB's! And (2) they are unable to get over
the absurdly ridiculous notion that the canonical format (which
almost ALL translations adhere to) is itself somehow divine and
inspired and not to be trifled with under any circumstances!!!
.
Therefore readers of the bible (like you and me) are made into
the slaves of corrupt and ignorant Christian Scribes&Pharisees,
and thus willfully deprived of any opportunity to read and
experience the Word as the earliest Greek-speaking believers
did (ie. with their hearts as well as with their heads).
.
- the almost ancient one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Men who love wisdom must inquire into very many things."
-- Heraclitus (ancient Greek philosopher from way back when)
x
Explosived
New member
Final Authority--- Faith in God
Final Authority--- Faith in God
Final Authority--- Faith in God
Last edited:
Geneva Bible?The greatest distinction of the Geneva Bible, is the extensive collection of marginal notes that it
contains. Prominent Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures. The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself.
I think we could get along without the explaination of the scriptures by these men.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Textman, learn to use VbCode man. You sound really wierd typing that way.
Jaltus, it called colloquialism.
OK, the first round is over. s9 posted very nicely but didn't have anything behind the swing. It was a very nice speech but devoid of and reasonable assertion. To equate other translations with "New Ageism" shows an incredible lack of theological sophistication. Not only that but it increases s9's job 2 fold because now he has to show what new agism is, show why it is bad, and show how other translations jive with a new age philosophy. He is now 3 degrees away from the original argument.
Jaltus came out heavy stating his tripartite foundation. Good questions to ask and answer and a strong bibliography that borrows from differing schools of thought.
Round one to Jaltus.
Jaltus, it called colloquialism.
OK, the first round is over. s9 posted very nicely but didn't have anything behind the swing. It was a very nice speech but devoid of and reasonable assertion. To equate other translations with "New Ageism" shows an incredible lack of theological sophistication. Not only that but it increases s9's job 2 fold because now he has to show what new agism is, show why it is bad, and show how other translations jive with a new age philosophy. He is now 3 degrees away from the original argument.
Jaltus came out heavy stating his tripartite foundation. Good questions to ask and answer and a strong bibliography that borrows from differing schools of thought.
Round one to Jaltus.
- Status