Sunday, April 20, 2008

Propaganda by Translation. The Sistine Defense. California and Sealing Relationships. Exodus 33:23, Would You Believe.



Ideologies. Never clear. Those hired to spread a Word may spread another altogether, when examined. A commission by a Renaissance Pope to a sculptor, to paint a ceiling instead. For background of the times, see World War I, World War 3, Other Battlegrounds: Ideological Battleground at the Sistine Chapel. And here, some Haiku - see ://volweb.utk.edu/school/bedford/harrisms/haiku.htm. Reading requires a different focus. Writing requires a discipline - cut and choose the words. A change in mindset to follow. Can you.

Michelangelo.
Revered, but what his intent
In anomalies.

Surprising Sistine.
Look up at the altar end.
Ceiling as teacher.

Position in life.
This, the Creator at work
Finishing sun, moon.

Fair use cropped, rescaled.
Do your own Images search.
This a little part.

Michelangelo.
What was your intention here.
Why veer from the text.

We read of no view
Quite like this in that first Week.
Believer or not.

Accidental show?
Or intent: relationships
And how those are sealed.

Leaf through. Looking. Pose.
There! Deity and Moses!
Context: Footnote 1.

Ok. Biblical.
But why move it off Sinai?
Thoughts. See Footnote 2.

Now what is meant here.
God sealing relationship
With this act? Then think:

From The Beginning,
Or at least from Sinai time,
This: modeled. Thus, Good.

Tsunami coming.
Biblical authority
Approves. Footnote 3.

Or, does the artist say,
Texts are scrambled anyway.
No "truth." Footnote 4.

Addendum by news.
California, gay marriage.
Add Sistine Defense?
..................................................
FN 1. Specific text here about the pose itself:

Exodus 33:23.


God and Moses are talking. They are in relationship, have a history. God says that Moses cannot see God's face because man shall not see God's face and live. God directs Moses as to how God shall be seen nonetheless. See how the versions up to the King James are consistent; but editors after that went on frolics of their own.

1.1. King James Version

Exodus 33:23 - "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." KJV Exodus 33:23. See the passage at see //skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/33.html.

1.2. Revised Standard Version (and later versions, see comparative translations)

Exodus 33:23 - "then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen." RSV Exodus 33:23.

1.3 The Douay - Rheims. This version used by the Roman Catholic Church was laid out 1582-1610.

For a history of the Catholic translations of the Bible, see ://www.bible-researcher.com/romcath.html. The Douay - Rheims translated the Vulgate Latin version of the Bible into English. See the full chronology of translations at ://www.bible-researcher.com/romcath.html

The Douay Rheims shows the "back side" translation, like the King James. See ://www.drbo.org/chapter/02033.htm. See many, many parallel translations at http://bible.cc/exodus/33-23.htm. Some in, some out. Early ones in, latest ones out.

But that online version of the Douay Rheims at drbo.org also shows a footnote. That footnote immediately disclaims the plain meaning, guides into a new one, and prevents the reader (who buys the spin) from drawing his or her own conclusions. It spins the passage impossibly into something else - it adds "as it were." So that the showing of the backside is "as it were behind." There is nothing in the original that suggests that removed figure of speech.

That is different from showing the behind. Is that as-it-were annotation from the Douay Rheims? Doubtful. It is somebody's intentional interpretation, not text. It is in italics, so it has to be an interpretation by a worried man. To check that out, we have to go earlier.

1.4 Latin Vulgate.

Go back further: to the Latin Vulgate 390-405 AD. This was compiled and written from the Greek into Latin by Saint Jerome and is shown in the chronology of translations at ://www.bible-researcher.com/romcath.html. See its Latin as the words compare to the King James and the Douay Rheims. Here is the comparison with the King James, at http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=2&c=33

There are enough words similar to ours (especially "posteriora") that the meaning to us is clear:

"tollamque manum meam et videbis posteriora mea faciem autem meam videre non poteris"

Something like take away my hand and see my posterior, not possible see face etc.

1.5 The Septuagint.

And from there, go back even further to the Septuagint about 285 BC as to Old Testament, see ://www.bible-researcher.com/brenton1.html.

Read about this early compilation - translation at ://www.septuagint.net/. Here is a translation - but we need help from you Greek scholars - Find Exodus 33:23 at ://septuagint.org/LXX/Exodus/Exodus33.html:

23 και αφελω την χειρα και τοτε οψη τα οπισω μου
το δε προσωπον μου ουκ οφθησεται σοι

Fair use quotation from that site, as to what we are looking at. Since we cannot translate, we go to Babelfish, at ://babelfish.altavista.com/tr.

At Babelfish, we get this:

"23 and afelw the hejra and then aspect opjsw me my person oyk ofcisetaj kin"

Go to://babelfish.altavista.com/tr. Even the words "aspect me my person" do not suggest someone merely turning his back.
..................................................................................
FN 2. Why did Michelangelo move the Sinai pose, later in Genesis, back to Creation Week?

This is clearly scripturally incorrect - not the act, but the location. And someone else had already done the Life of Moses at the Sistine. That was not part of Michelangelo's charge. So, is it

a. License, as an artist may take liberties with text? Or
b. Protest, or commentary, and if so, for or against what?

Putting that act at that time, at Creation, has interesting theological implications. For those who support this form of intimacy, it may show that From the Beginning it was not only allowed, but engaged in by the Deity.

Then, finding it in the Life of Moses, may show to those supporting it, that it is acceptable intimacy depending on the context and surround.
...............................................................
FN 3 Effect of editing out and ignoring passages that run counter to culture.
Posterior controversies. Even if religion cannot any longer say that gay-like behavior, intimacy acts outside H&W is disapproved by On High (who never wrote in "marriage" at all), what cultural grounds are substituted? Comes back down to what are acceptable forms for expressing intimacy among human beings. If any are culturally unacceptable, or guised as religiously unacceptable, what is behind it, except sheer power plays.
Blue Book question.

Discuss the process. Look up again the full scene at the Sistine. See
://www.all-art.co.il/images/artists_images/michelangelo_Sistine1_genesis27_Sun_Moon_Plants1.jpg

As to the pose, we ask if there is a history of what it means in religion in terms of relationship. If the pose deepened relationship, Biblically, look again. Our later rejection of the words, and otherwise, making it suddenly "sin," is still cultural, and not religion-based. If the deity does it....

From that perspective, it may signify the modernly unthinkable. It goes against interpretations that people in religious and political power positions have long held. And taught. But is it so. If this really is God's way of offering intimacy to man, when to look on God's face would mean death, as in Exodus 33:23, King James Version, then it is culture that intervened to say no, not God.

If so, that interpretation that there is a context of intimacy where the act is not only acceptable but engaged in by the deity.

That consideration may explain the Church's ambivalence toward homosexuality - its condemning those lay people who are caught, but tacitly approving clergy who are caught and simply moving them elsewhere, etc. Homosexuality for regular people is a no. For clergy, a maybe - except when publicized.
...........................................................
FN 4. Texts as propaganda by translation: We edit out what the next culture does not want, and pretend it is theology.

Is it true that translation choices of words can reflect the motivation of the translator. What and whose "Word" is being spread? Truth in deletions. See what was originally sanctified even, because the deity did it, that later was an unacceptable idea.

Deletions ease the arguments of homophobic later people against homosexuality. Deletions remove inconvenient arguments that could counter their view. Our own heritage - redacted with the giant red pencils of the translators.

Look back. When did an ancient acceptance of intimacy between persons, regardless of gender, become taboo. Go back to the Greeks, others. Was it to serve the interests of an institution committed to patriarchy, regardless of whether that was "religious."

The "coercion of thought" behind text deletions and changes, so the people do not even know it was there: Theft of consent.

Since the earlier translations described the posture, a Biblically educated contemporary of Michelangelo would have known, probably, where the idea of the intimacy of the posture came from. No wonder there was no outcry at the time, even if the placement in the Creation story, instead of Moses, is wrong.

But our translations leave it out - forcing us to disregard a part of our own heritage. In a sense, this is theft of consent - theft of our consent to dogma because we are kept from full information about its rise.

When does interest become beating a dead horse. For that, see ://www.goenglish.com/BeatADeadHorse.asp

So, someone else take over here. Scholars, start your engines. The act may not be as against scripture as you have been taught. See ://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm; and ://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html
For more, see the *.
...........................................................................

* Common sense: A face to face anywhere is an intimacy of the first order, as in the King James; if not that, the next best is a physical intimacy in another way, as the King James also shows. It certainly not to turn your back, as the Revised Standard says.

Then turn to Genesis 24:8-9 and Abraham, his thigh, his servant and others, and the swearing, and its "interpretation" as "ce
lestial love" or "conjugal" love - at http://www.biblemeanings.info/Bible/Genesis/ch24,v2-m.htm#AC3021. Celestial and conjugal? Does that make any sense at all except as intentional cultural spin?

All is fog, all is night. Is that so? Are we are a culture of sales and power-perpetuation and what will make money. The translations serve who? Look behind the curtain.
............................................

Ramble:

On the purpose of earliest scripture inclusions and changes.

The earliest Christian church saw itself as the "one true religion" and translated its scriptures to spread and propagate the religion, see ://www.bible-researcher.com/oldlatin.html#motive.

The primary intent therefore was not to reproduce with strict accuracy what was actually said by J and in tight storyline order- but to convey an impact, and in time, a theology for it. There were countless "translations" from the original oral Aramaic to written Greek to Latin to any number of languages. Including Hebrew. All the translations have led to sea changes in text. Cultural and relationship activities acceptable and even deemed religious in one era, are taken off the radar of the next.

History of Translations.

Translators from Hebrew to Greek are known, but there is no record of the earliest translations from original Greek into Latin. Translators came in "crowds." See ://www.bible-researcher.com/oldlatin.html#many. There had been many versions of early scripture in Greek and authorship was variously attributed or was unknown. See ://www.bible-researcher.com/oldlatin.html#many. Do go to that site to see the convoluted history of all our understandings and blind alleys, misstatements and everyone's enthusiasm leading to all sorts of acts and omissions of verbal carnage.

Politics, religion, families. Transparency, disclosure, facts first, then beliefs and views.



Friday, April 4, 2008

Patriotism in a Time of Wreckers: Uses of Miasma, Fog in Propaganda

Fear of fog.
Election miasma.*
The purposeful movement of beacons,
Moving goals, changing meanings,
So that ships bestormed,
Otherwise on good course,
Founder.

It may be legend,
RBut we hear of coastal folk -
Wreckers ** -
Who faked the shore beacons,
Moved them about in the night and the fog and the storm,
So that ships, yawing in the gales,
Would steer toward them,
To a safe harbor,
So they thought.

But there were rocks there instead.
And those who would wade out to drown survivors
And take booty.

Keep whatever washed ashore.
Similar to the uses of words
To lure, mislead, coax
Those who Founder in the propaganda,
Until they think they see a way to a safe harbor,
A trustworthy account.

But the wreckers
Are setting them up
Positioning for booty,
Twisting and spinning,
Again.

Hush. Look. Out the window.
Through the rain.
Over there, on the cliff.
A dancing light.
The wreckers are out.
Snuff your candle.
Some recover, and lift their keels
With the new tide.

Rise with our tide. Fly, Obama.
........................................

*Miasma. Poisonous effluvia. Deathlike, foreboding influence or atmosphere See <://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miasma

** Wreckers: Wikipedia disputes the effectiveness of false lights, see ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_(shipwreck). It is part of lore and other sources, however, see book by Bella Bathurst, "The Wreckers, A Story of Killing Seas, False Lights, and Plundered Shipwrecks, From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day," Houghton Mifflin 2005, at ://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4776140. See other accounts at Anglesey at ://www.rhosneigr.org.uk/History/robbers.html; or at Cornwall at ://www.rencentral.com/oct_nov_vol1/wreckers.shtml. In the New World, the trade extended to Florida and the Caribbean, see ://www.oirf.org/museums/oldesthouse.htm

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Why Arm a Tinderbox? Kosovo and Separatist States and Separatism. Our Ignorance.

Do it here. Don't do it there.

We dare you to find a "policy." Is it really just oil connections? Industry interests? Not the spread of democracy and the big words? Check it out. Think, look things up, and decide.

1. The United States is arming Kosovo. See ://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTYBWxbnwoby8z38DtzDO_W31Bww.

2. The United States has a big base in Kosovo. See Camp Bondsteel at ://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-bondsteel.htm. See the socialist view of why - oil connections again - at ://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/oil-a29.shtml or try the large caps at ://www.counterpunch.org/zoltanbases.html , to see that these are not neutral issues.

3. The United States has never been big on understanding historical fissures within cultural-geographical areas, and fosters lousy schools here so our kids also remain ignorant. A battle holding people's self-identity from centuries ago? Pishtosh. Get a grip, our diplomat types say as they put down their heavy feet. Get over it. See ://www.mercurynews.com/natbreakingnews/ci_8337521 - Condoleezza says it is nothing but grievance and sentimentality. See anything at all about our government's grasp of the Sunni-Shiite animus in Iraq, and the consequences of acting in that ignorance. Or Ireland. Or Georgia in the old USSR. Or Chechnya. Or Basques.

So, we are blowing it again with Kosovo. See FodderSight, Kosovo and Disinformation.

Same ignorance, same lack of perspective before pushing independence for this group here, in Kosovo. Then push for continued absorption for that group over there, probably where we have no oil connected interests perhaps? Nothing do to with the spread of self-determination?

Our inconsistency historically is appalling and no wonder we are not trusted. See FodderSight, Woodrow Wilson on Serbia's Geographic Integrity.

History. See the background of Kosovo and Serbia, from this rough perspective from Bosnia, a neighbor of Serbia and Kosovo, where ethnic Orthodox and conqueror-related Muslim settlers have both lived together for centuries, and clashed, at Bosnia and Kosovo Heritage; and the strength of ethnic memory of the battle that lost Serbia's Kosovo to the Turks, at Kosovo I, at Kosovo and Ethnic Memory I; and Kosovo and Ethnic Memory II.

The Heart of the Issue. Serbia's national "heart" is there, at Kosovo Field, where they lost to the Ottoman Empire, and the Maid of Kosovo lives in the epic poems cited there, and now it goes to those who came in on the coattails of the fierce Ottomans, the mere Albanians who served them. How does anyone find release in that kind of issue. Is that fair, say the Kosovo Serbs, now that the Ottomans are out. Should it not be ours again? No, says Condi. Get over it. Passage of time, we have a base there now, we like the oil it connects to, and we don't care about the Ravens of the past.

Next. So, we reap another whirlwind. Shall we make a principle out of this: we also then support the Basques, the Chechens, the everybody else? Maybe so. But can we think first, please.

News non-news. And why is the arming of Kosovo not in our daily newspaper on the porch, Hartford Courant? I discuss it with a fabulous cashier at the supermarket, Frieda, from Bosnia - but we get little else.

Why? Because our foreign policy puts pandering to industry first, and papers are owned by individuals with self-interests to push, and the needs of real people, who are not the liability-insulated corporation "legal persons," go second; as well as any consideration of ethics, equity and balance, far third.

Imagine. Maybe Serbia could have agreed to some arrangement with the Kosovo area, like a province with special protections. But no, make it independent and arm it in two weeks. Like Marduk killing Tiamat at creation, not asking himself if lesser measures than force and betrayal could have brought peace. See the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish, at Martin Luther's Stove, Enuma Elish. And the origins of self-centric behavior, whimsy meant seriously, for thought-provoking, at Martin Luther's Stove, Genesis Revisited. If you are flexible. If not, don't go there.

Bush league. See ://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bush+league.

Today's Rock, Scissors, Paper: Unbridled. The Vital Bridle. Capitalism, Democracy and Terrorism

The Vital Bridle* -- and Unbridled Capitalism

Capitalism breaks democracy.

Democracy cuts terrorism.

Terrorism covers capitalism.


Now: See the formal rock, paper, scissors society at ://www/worldrps.com/

..................................................
*Bridle - over-the-head restraint, for controlling a horse. See ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridle