« first day (1786 days earlier)   

1:46 AM
@PaulVargas I haven't voted on that one, but I don't follow how he arrives at that conclusion ("gap") based on that evidence. I think the Mp cross-referencing is just a mechanical thing based on the incidental identity of forms. I'm sure it's true that a reference to the creation story was intended in Jer., but I don't see how that influences the meaning of Gen., and certainly not how one gets from there to the "gap."
@Davïd I see, thanks. What do parentheses mean around the definitions in CAD? (I'm now feeling like one of the cool kids since fdb enlightened me on that abbreviation.)
 
 
7 hours later…
8:28 AM
@Susan The explanation of article structure is in vol. 6, Heth, the first published volume; see p. vi: "Translations are put in parentheses whenever only an approximate meaning can be offered...". They were fairly fastidious about this.
 
8:38 AM
@Davïd Interesting, I wouldn't think that "degree of approximation" could so easily be construed as a dichotomous variable, regardless of how fastidious one might be. But I also have no sense of the sort of evidence they're looking at.
(I, meanwhile, am sill concerned about their imminent heart attack.)
 
9:12 AM
@Susan ? By "dichotomous variable", do you mean that this entry offers a "1" and a "2"? Each of those is parenthesized (neologism alert), signalling two broad categories of usage, without a clear English gloss for either. (Sometimes one "heading" will have parentheses, another not, for the same lexeme.) Or have I misunderstood?
@Susan While being uncertain of the antecedent for "their", the link occasioned another visit to Dick's offering. The article at the "Religious Study Center" link is complete bunk -- well, its own computer analysis which Dick is reporting.
Dick reports (accurately): "that the book of Isaiah has a surprisingly large number of function prefixes indicating single authorship"; the article expands:
> The usage rate for vav-lamed is unique to the book of Isaiah, occurring approximately .68 times for every 50 function prefixes in Isaiah A and .67 times per 50 prefixes in Isaiah B, compared to a zero rate (that is, almost never) for such books as Amos, Micah, and Ezekiel. ...
What are they smoking?
^^^^ That's the hit rate for "vav-lamed". I don't know where they're getting this metric for "function prefixes", but their characterization of this data is very misleading. It seems to suggest a marginally increased use in the more recent books (top 5 are: Eccl, 1Ch, Ezra, Neh, 2Ch) although that's not dramatic (6 and 7 are Deut and Num!).
@Susan I'd be interested to know how someone far more numerate and statistically savvy than me construes that data....
 
@Davïd With BibleWorks?
 
@PaulVargas Indeed.
@PaulVargas Are you up very early? or very late?? ;)
 
@Davïd Ha! Very late! I deleted a file... Recuva didn't help...
 
9:28 AM
@PaulVargas :( 04:30?? Oh my.
 
@Davïd I deleted it thinking that it wasn't necessary. But someone at work asked me for the file...
 
@PaulVargas Hope you can resurrect it. Somehow. Or find another copy. Somewhere.
 
@Davïd I'm almost done. BTW, I found something quite amazing here. :D
 
@PaulVargas That's a relief! / Btw ... excellent! The authoritative classical Hebrew reference grammar -- nice to know it's in Spanish.
 
@Davïd I just meant that if you plot x= degree of certainty (presumably itself a function of the quality + quantity of the evidence, which apparently they are able to estimate) and y= # of lexical items, it didn't seem likely to be a biphasic curve, which means that dichotomizing it (0/1, 1/2, whatever -- here no/yes parentheses) loses a lot of data.
(i.e. as compared to a truly continuous variable -- obviously silly here -- but cf. NT critical texts' A/B/C/D grading system, or the Jesus seminar whatever-the-color-thing-was system, or anything else with more than two categories.) But presumably whatever they did made sense, so I'm probably missing the point.
@Davïd They = CAD, a metonym for (presumably) its authors, or any other involved parties with coronary arteries. :-)
 
9:44 AM
@Susan That's a dialect of English I'm not so familiary with! ;)
@Susan I think they just mean: "assyrian-word: 1. (it means something like this); 2. (and it also means something like this); 3. word." (That is, phrase pseudo-glosses for ##1, 2, and a proper equivalent for meaning #3.)
@Susan Do the CAD authors care about the authorship of Isaiah?
@Susan Okay - I found a good example (I think/hope!):
 
10:09 AM
^^^ I think that displays the plain vs. parenthesized options with a bit of data and discussion, all for the same lexeme.
 
@Davïd Ha, no, sorry, that part of the communication gap (at least) was my fault. The link was supposed to be, and now is, indicative of my conflation of abbreviations.
@Davïd I'll have to think about "pseudo-gloss".
 
@Susan B-) lolz. :) That makes more sense!
 
 
1 hour later…
11:17 AM
0
Q: Does Islam's Muhammad fulfill writer of 1 John's description of an Anti-Christ?

DecryptedDoes Islam's Muhammad fulfill the description of an Anti-Christ? The Defining Verse Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22 NASB) Do these stand as Muhammad's Testimony of Denial 4:...

^^^^ Closeable, I'd say. (Well, I've voted that way...)
 
11:47 AM
0
Q: How can we encourage better tagging by those posing questions?

DavïdWhen questions are posted, the system demands they have at least one tag. These are typically used responsibly and well. However, in a significant number of cases, they aren't. For example: some users create overly granular tags (e.g., adding a cake tag when asking about Jeremiah 44:19 -- n.b. ...

 
^^^^ @JonEricson - If you have any thoughts (or facts!) to offer on that one, it would be great to have them. Thanks!
 

« first day (1786 days earlier)