Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 22

= May 22 =

Beyond combining all individual bibles into all - in - one now
Hmm excuse baseball bats I'm a her and not a him. Also, I'm not spammer/spamming.--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 04:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs)

Is it beyond even possible to combining all individual bibles into all - in -one now?

As opposed to how its always been. I for one would truly love for sure instead getting more one.--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 00:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs)


 * I am guessing that you mean all the different version of the Christian Bible. Yes, this can be done online, and I believe many sites attempt to do just that.  Of course, the books that some would like included in the Bible are nearly endless, so this is quite an undertaking.  Some may also have been lost.


 * It's also possible you meant to include all religious writings, which would be an even more daunting task. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 'All' is rather a wide term. I suppose it would include things like the Conservapedia crowd-sourced Bible where they try and remove any liberal untruth introduced since Christ first gave his clear upstanding right wing libertarian message. :) Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also note that Wikipedia is a good source for multiple versions. For example, our Ten Commandments article includes many versions and sources. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But would this "super bible" include these? What about this? Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The issues would be not just which books to include, but also what "proper" translation to use. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Any such online attempt to combine all bibles would be either be taken down for copyright violations or not include many recent translations. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Multilingual Bibles were kind of a 16th-century fad, facilitated by the invention of printing. The first one was the "Complutensian Polyglot".  See Polyglot (book)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The OP may be interested in The Word: The Bible from 26 Translations. It contains:

Old Testament:


 * KJV -The complete text appears in boldface type
 * AAT -The Bible: An American Translation (J.M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed)
 * ABPS -The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: An Improved Edition (American Baptist Publication Society)
 * Amp -The Amplified Bible
 * ASV -The American Standard Version
 * Bas -The Bible in Basic English
 * Ber -The Modern Language Bible: The New Berkeley Version in Modern English
 * DeW -Praise-Songs of Israel: A Rendering of the Book of Psalms (John DeWitt)
 * Har -The Psalms for Today: A New Translation from Hebrew into Current English (R.K. Harrison)
 * Jerus -The Jerusalem Bible
 * JPS -The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Test: A New Translation (The Jewish Publication Society)
 * Knox - The Holy Bible: A Translatioon From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals (Monsignor Ronald Knox)
 * Lam - The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (George M. Lamsa)
 * Mof - A New Translation of the Bible (James Moffatt)
 * NAB -The New American Bible
 * NEB -The New English Bible
 * PBV -The Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church
 * Phi -Four Prophets: Amos, Hosea, First Isaiah, Micah (J.B. Phillips)
 * Rhm -The Emphasized Bible: A New Translation (J.B. Rotherham)
 * RSV -The Revised Standard Version
 * RSV -The Holy Bible: Revised Version
 * Sept -The Septuagint (Charles Thomson)
 * Sprl -A Translation of the Old Testament Scriptures From the Original Hebrew (Helen Spurrell)
 * Tay -The Living Bible: Paraphrased (Kenneth Taylor)
 * Tor -The Torah: The Five Books of Moses
 * YLT -Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (Robert Young)

New Testament: --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * KJV -The complete text appears in boldface type
 * ABUV -The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, American Bible Union Version (John A. Broadus et al)
 * Alf -The New Testament (Henry Alford)
 * Amp -The Amplified New Testament
 * ASV -The American Standard Version
 * Bas -The New Testament in Basic English
 * Beck -The New Testament in the Language of Today (William F. Beck)
 * Ber -The Berkely Version of the New Testament (Gerrit Verkuyl)
 * Con -The Epistles of Paul (W.J. Conybeare)
 * Gspd -The New Testament: An American Translation (Edgar J. Goodspeed)
 * Knox -The New Testament in the Translation of Monsignor Ronald Knox
 * Lam -The New Testament According to the Eastern Texts (George M. Lamsa)
 * Mof -The New Testament: A New Translation (James Moffatt)
 * Mon -The Centerary Translation: The New Testament in Modern English (Helen Barrett Montgomery)
 * NASB -The New American Standard Bible: New Testament
 * NEB -The New English Bible: New Testament
 * Nor -The New Testament: A New Translation (Olaf N. Norlie)
 * Phi -The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips)
 * Rieu -The Books of Acts (C.H. Rieu)
 * Rieu -The Four Gospels (E.V. Rieu)
 * Rhm -The Emphasized New Testament: A New Translation (J.B. Rotherham)
 * RSV -The Revised Standard Version
 * Tay -Living Letters: The Paraphrased Epistles; Living Gospels: The Paraphrased Gospels; Living Prophecies: The Minor Prophets Paraphrased and Daniel and the Revelation (Kenneth N. Taylor)
 * TCNT -The Twentieth Century New Testament
 * Wey -The New Testament in Modern Speech (Richard Francis Weymouth)
 * Wms -The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People (Charles B. Williams)


 * More examples:


 * Hexapla
 * English Hexapla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.0.159 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There are several issues involved in creating a Bible translation. Even assuming you only want to think about English versions (ignoring the thousands of other languages) you first have to determine what was the original text as written, and then decide what it means. We do not possess the originals of any part of the Bible - there are many old manuscripts, but as they had to be copied by hand, they vary. Most differences are minor - some are clearly mistakes by a scribe, or different ways of expressing the same meaning. A few matter - so you either include the possibly contradictory versions in your translation, or pick one. As the languages used to write the Bible are no longer in use (modern Greek and Hebrew are related, but have changed over time) it is not always simple to decide what a word or a phrase meant when it was first used. Do you put several possible meanings into your translation, or pick one? Then you have to pick the best way to express that in modern English - which is a much richer language than either Greek or Hebrew, and can often express a single idea in many different ways. So do you use modern colloquial English, or stick to a more traditional or literary style? There really is no way to come up with a single translation which is right for every English speaker today. Wymspen (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, again all of your answers to my latest question. In which I was only wondering more anything else. At the same time don't me wrong I already knew about everything you said here and beyond.

In addition the link to one my most recent blog entries/notes concerning all about and beyond this.

Beyond both concerns and questions on/regarding What Is the Bible?:…, Rob Bell | Female Forum Re: Beyond both concerns and questions on/regarding What Is the Bible?:..., Rob Bell | Female Forum--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs)


 * So you asked a question here, not because you wanted an answer, but rather to promote your website? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Huh because I wasn't promoting it, but was pointing out to the rest both of concerns and questions. By the way I thought that I was allowed on here.  Instead of doing what I used to do by copying and pasting everything everywhere that I belong to.--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 04:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs)

Manbulge
The article Packing (phallus) describes the artificial bulge used by transmen as a "packer". Is there a non-slang standard word for the natural/non-artificial bulge in cis men that is not ambiguous? The terms manbulge, mooseknuckle, trouser tent, lunchbox, cockbulge etc. all seem like slang or colloquially nonstandard. Please provide references since I'm considering adding them to the "packing" article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.95.137 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Codpiece was quite unrevealing in this respect. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I dont think "codpiece" can be added to the packing article. I'm thinking of adding something along the lines of "... for transmen who want to resemble having a (insert term here)". 79.67.95.137 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Does "genital bulge" not work? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. I'm looking for a single noun without adjectives. I guess manbulge is the most standard term even though its slang. 79.67.95.137 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mooseknuckles? -- Jayron 32 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Jayron32, no mooseknuckle is nonstandard too. Its not encyclopedic to say for instance "transmen use a packer in order to accentuate their mooseknuckle". 79.67.91.88 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Women ignored me, and you suggested I put a potato in my pants, but now they flee in terror, for some reason."


 * Dr. Ruth: "I don't understand why putting a potato in the front of your pants didn't work."


 * "Oh ! The FRONT of my pants ! Now I get it." StuRat (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A packer packs his "package". Package. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the UK, lunchbox has some nonstandard currency, see definition 3 on Wiktionary. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Lunchbox is too ambiguous. For example, "you could clearly see his lunchbox" - the meaning is not immediately apparent. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * About transmen but men do not say "you could clearly see his," whatever. They say "what do you think of her" beautiful eyes. And that she bites. --Askedonty (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem with using the word "penis"? "Some trans men use a packer to resemble having a penis." Seems pretty straightforward. And if you want to get completely pedantic about it; I don't have a trouser tent - my pants do; I have the underlying penis and scrotum that cause it. It seems unlikely that you're going to find a non-slang single word that refers only to the offset of fabric. Even within the clothing industry the terms used would have multiple words: "He hangs left" can't really be re-cast the way you need it to. Matt Deres (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 problems with "penis". Firstly, a penis does not necessarily cause a bulge with some trousers. Secondly, "penis" could cause a misconception of an artificial penis whereas some transmen merely use a sock. Thirdly, directly using "penis" could cause a misunderstanding of nude transmen rather than clothed transmen. In a nutshell, its ambiguous. A standard version of "manbulge" would give a clear delineation between nudism and clothedness - a major difference in my opinion. It is especially important to make this distinction due to the possible legal ramifications of the former. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh...nutshell. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply put, there seems to be a gap in the English language. This is not helped by the mild intolerence towards neologisms in the Anglosphere. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agricultural revolution and cats
Ok, so dogs get a lot of credit over cats for being useful and for being able to be put to work whereas cats are depicted as lazy, aloof unwilling to be trained, etc. - I think it's time to redress that balance. Sure, dogs are very useful for all sorts of purposes at the moment, but I think it's cats who got the ball rolling. Without them, the agricultural revolution would never have been possible because unprotected granary stores would have been plundered and infected by vermin, right? So, is it fair to say that without cats, we'd never have made from the transition from hunter-gatherers to organised, settled communities. Maybe the reason ancient cultures worshipped them was because they knew how fundamentally important they were to their society, especially in terms of ensuring a grain surplus. Just checking that my theory makes sense, or if I'm missing something entirely --Andrew 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In Ancient Egypt, they were venerated for their ability to hunt and kill rats, mice and most especially cobras. You can read about their status in our article on Cats in ancient Egypt. Cats were certainly a factor in civilization's move from hunter-gathering to agriculture but there were other agricultural civilizations thriving at the same time as the Egyptians potentially without the use of domesticated felines.. uhhlive (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Shillourokambos, which is evidence that humans domesticated cats as early as 9,500 years ago, which would indicate that domestication of cats is correlated with the neolithic revolution, with all of the caveats of correlation does not imply causation. -- Jayron 32 18:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I like to think that whilst man domesticated the dog. Cats domesticated man. As said above, cats are not easily trained as they are their own masters. Their ancestors realized that the early agriacultralists proved them with a sources of vermin all year round – so they moved in. At the same time, making sure, that on cold winter nights they always had the warmest place next to the fire and trained humans to sit in the second best place around that fire. Aspro (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently the favored hypothesis among all the biologists I know is that dogs and cats both domesticated themselves, i.e. it's not that we bred them selectively for certain traits, but that the situation was such that those who didn't mind living around humans higher lifetime fecundity. Self-domestication. Note also that domestic cats are far less changed in terms of genetics than dogs are, compared to their wild counterparts. This is mentioned at cat. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "So, is it fair to say...", no, not really. It is fair to say cats seemed to have performed a very important service in many societies around the time that grain storage became important to human settlements. See rat catcher, rat terrier and even mouse trap for non-cat ways that some human societies have dealt with rodents in their grain stores. Pest_control also has some general info, but not much on rodents. While indeed lack of cats may have hypothetically made grain storage harder in the neolithic era, WP:OR I don't think it's fair to say the agricultural revolution wouldn't have happened. But none of us can say for sure, we don't have a working crystal ball. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Without a time-machine we can never know but can take intelligent guesses. Not only do rodents eat grain they also spread horrid's like Leptospirosis. Most of that happens at night whilst humans sleep and cats eat. So there is obviously a strong symbiotic relationship which continues to this very day. One can keep vermin out by building granaries with thick adobe or stone walls which a rodent can not penetrate in a single night... For instance, a way of preserving grain was to bury it in a deep pit. Bacterial decay quickly replaced spoiling oxygen with carbon dioxide. Yet both of these techniques (although simple to realize today) would probably not have been obvious to our forbears when they first started to cultivate grain. So our symbiotic relationship with Felix is probable very important.Aspro (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a correlation between Medieval Europe's attempt to eradicate cats, with the growth of the rat population and the spread of the Bubonic Plague? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Rats are exonerated as reservoir hosts for the Black Death. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this hypothesis has been bouncing around for some decades. At some times the plague advanced at six mile a day. Way too fast for the rat to spread it. It is possible that the bacterium transmuted and became air borne and the animal vector was human. In the last plague to hit London, some people spend a fortune on having coal braziers burning around the clock. Might just be, that the coal-tars in the smoke acted as a disinfectant in the same way that Joseph Lister later used carbolic acid. Aspro (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, isn't the feline trait of burying feces important to domestication ? That is, any number of animals could hunt rodents, but they would also leave feces around the camp.  Not a desirable trait, as this tends to spread disease (primitive man may not have known this, just that stepping in poo is "gross", not knowing that this disgust is an adaptation to avoid disease).  Of course, dogs do leave little "presents" everywhere, but the benefits must justify this increased disease risk.  StuRat (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Stu, where is your evidence for the above? How do we know that primitive humans disliked stepping in faeces? What are the benefits you speak of?  By the way, I cannot think of a domesticated agricultural animal that does not transmit zoonosis. DrChrissy (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ancient man may not have had soap and thus had  horribly BO. Yet do they differ from modern man or woman, which on getting home finds something from a dog is clinging on the soles of their shoes? Sure, a pig farm may not be everyone's idea of pleasant olfactory experience but some doggy pooh is really offensive. Cats do not do this- they bury it. It may have been OK for Capt'n Kirk to tell someone else to  clean off the  Klingons on his right-wing but it is an odious chore (and before anyone brings it up. I know it should have been starboard wing). Aspro (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur, as that doesn't mean they all transmit disease equally. Burying feces is an effective way to reduce the spread of disease.  This is why humans do it now, although disgust/miasma would have been the sole reason, before the true link to disease was known.  See latrine, sewage treatment, etc.  Note that sanitation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, for example, far predates the germ theory of disease, so if you don't find disgust to be the explanation for such sanitation, you need to propose another.  (There is the outdated miasma theory, stating that foul air caused disease, which in practice was just a formalized version of disgust.)   StuRat (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The very word malaria (= bad air) comes from the belief that the foulness of the air in certain swampy places was what caused the disease. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What decade is this wallpaper from, roughly?


I have recently come across this old wallpaper in a house I was refurbishing. Are there any art experts on Wikipedia that can tell me what era this style of art comes from, even if it is a guess? Thanks! --Abledtaken (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't have much idea about the lion and zebra, but the flowers suggest the 1960s or early 1970s -- or an imitation of the 1960s or early 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The rather cartoonish face on the lion makes me think it's for a kid's room. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like the way it's eyeing the door instead of the lioness or zebra. Probably for an unhappy kid's room. 1978, I'll guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's eyeing the door? There could be another animal just out of shot. --Viennese Waltz 07:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, maybe a couple of drunk gorillas arguing over which one thought it was a good idea to adopt a lion. Or maybe just an elephant in the room. He's definitely hiding from something, though. Not the best look for a lion, anywhere outside of Oz. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The style could be British, as far back as the 1950s. But that would be exceptional - the sort of parents who were London-based design aficionados, or maybe even wallpaper designers themselves. As paper that had reached a mass market, it's later 1960s - early to mid 1970s. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're interested in British post-war graphic design, don't miss http://vintageposterblog.com/  Andy Dingley (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The colorway - avocado, rust, gold - was characteristic of interior design for the early or mid-1960s USA (or at least Southern California where I encountered it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahjay (talk • contribs)
 * Indeed, the avocado-rust-gold color scheme is indicative of the 1960s in the U.S.; " Green, gold, orange and yellow were very popular and could be found on everything from clothes to home décor, and even cars." -- Jayron 32 11:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP doesn’t say which county he is in. If it is the UK then the Victoria and Albert Museum has a huge archive.21:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)