Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:43 PM
That's complete bullshit. They don't 'add' dogma but they mislead. I believe those versions where translated from King James and not from Hebrew or Greek. Unfortunately some scholars thought it would be better to translate entire thoughts instead of the words. because fewer and fewer people were reading the Bible they assumed it was because it was written in a old version of english; it wasn't easy to read or understand. Unfortunately one of the side- effects of this is that it becomes inaccurate. these are general purpose translations at best. But there are errors. Have you read the gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene?
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:42 PM
That's complete bullshit. They don't 'add' dogma but they mislead. I believe those versions where translated from King James and not from Hebrew or Greek. Unfortunately some scholars thought it would be better to translate entire thoughts instead of the words. because fewer and fewer people were reading the Bible they assumed it was because it was written in a old version of english; it wasn't easy to read or understand. Unfortunately one of the side- effects of this is that it becomes inaccurate. these are general purpose translations at best. But there are errors. Have you read the gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene?
Re: Exodus of Babylon by SupremeDreamer	Dovina 17.255.240.138	3-Feb-06/7:40 PM
This sounds like some folks' version of Christianity. If you mean it as satire on that, then 10. Since I'm unsure, 7
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.138	3-Feb-06/7:32 PM
Yes, I tend to go with the NIV or the NAS because they claim to follow the best manuscripts and to translate without added or subtracted dogma. Still I realize many uncertainties exist as to how closely even these match the writers' originals, all of which are lost.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:25 PM
there are sooooo many translations! I have 6 or 7 different ones. And I know there are more, and if I could read greek or hebrew, well then I would be unstoppable! As for what christians in this country commonly believe about the bible, there's so much entrenched mythology about the bible, as well as so much that has been left out or manipulated that I believe most haven't got a clue.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.138	3-Feb-06/7:19 PM
Yes, and thanks for the suggestion.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:16 PM
Aha! The connotation of rose for you is personal, I think that's lovely, but the reader might pause there or question it. maybe you could write a poem about the way your father comunicates. Are there other shorthand words he uses?
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.138	3-Feb-06/7:13 PM
Then you disagree with the English translations in common use?
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:12 PM
Oh and I wanted to say that I agree with the philosophy that nothing is new. Maybe different or undiscovered but never new.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.138	3-Feb-06/7:11 PM
Yes, I've had enough flak to know I should change that. My father was a gardener, and when he said "rose" he meant "rose bush, look out for thorns."
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:08 PM
The man that wrote it never discribe himself as either. That's a protestant lie.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/7:06 PM
if you mean thorn you should probably write thorn. Or thorny rose.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.138	3-Feb-06/7:03 PM
Whoever wrote it claims to be the son of David and a king in Jeruselem. Only Solomon fits. I think it's a beautifully written book, which Szymborska apparently fails to appreciate as shown by making light of "Nothing is new under the sun." I don't think the writer meant that entirely literly. The book contains many images, and I think this one expresses his unhappy conclusion that, even after gaining all he strove for, happiness still eludes. He tries to show that following God's righteousness is the only hope for happiness, but I sense that even in that he finds less than he hoped for. In a sense, I think he really means that nothing is new, or can be new in the future. Of course, that's easy to argue against, but I think he felt that at some level that it's true. That's worth thinking about, I think.
Re: Even the elephants by ecargo	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/6:43 PM
The 3rd stanza should be left alone, it works. 'Now the elephants know' clashes with 'they have learned the high places' you could put 'for' at the beginning of the second line or you could take that first line off the top and place it somewhere towards the bottom. Try reading it starting on the second line, it makes a much better intro. I don't think the sky could hide itself. Although it might work if it stood perfectly still in the corner with a lampshade on its head. If by 'hail' you mean bullets, I think you should search for a better symbol. 'Hard hail' sounds like hard hail, hail can kill afterall. The first line might fit nicely above the last two lines of your poem.
Re: Exodus of Babylon by SupremeDreamer	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/6:24 PM
Holy shit.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	god'swife 71.103.98.44	3-Feb-06/6:13 PM
I beg to differ. First of all 'Ecclesiastes' which is derived from the latin title Ecclesiasticus, is NOT a person's name. It means- †he Church book. If this book had been written by a King of Jerusalem it would be in the Torah, and it is not. The Authors name is Jesus Ben Sirach'. The book was translated into Greek by the author's grandson in 132 BC. This translation was eventually adopted into the bible of the Greek church. Hence the name. Secondly, by the end of the book the author concludes; "Fear God, and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.' 12:14 The author laments that life 'means' pain and sorrow and death. But then he explains that each has a choice; to be wise or to be foolish. The entire book is peppered with examples of the good things in life; Love, youth, food, drink, friendship, wisdom. As much as you possibly can, fill your life with these good things, and rejoice now, while you're still a sentient being. I think what Szymborska's says regarding Ecclesiasticus is hogwash.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.18.47	3-Feb-06/4:54 PM
Do you feel that "nothing is new" is more, or less, of an exaggeration than "nothing is worthwhile"?
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 67.72.98.92	3-Feb-06/3:34 PM
The book was written by a son of David who was king in Jeruselem. Whatever. And the writer really meant that nothing is new! And, oh yes, he shows no sign of despondency.
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	Dovina 67.72.98.92	3-Feb-06/3:25 PM
Of course!
Re: a comment on A Walk in the Park by Dovina	ecargo 172.145.59.138	3-Feb-06/3:22 PM
Solomon never "claimed" to be Ecclesiastes, that claim was made about Solomon by others. Certain modern scholars are now moving away from that belief, in part because the Hebrew used in Ecclesiastes would not have been in common use in Solomon's time. Your interpretation of the meaning of Ecclesiastes is simplistic.