|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 4, 2018 8:49:00 GMT
Actually the are not exactly the same bibles, not only was the Catholic bible for many centuries only in Latin it actually contains several books that are not included in Protestant ones. There are several doctrinal differences between Protestant and Catholic Churches such as married clergy, the status of the Virgin Mary etc. The core belief is very similar between the two churches but there are important differences between the two of them. It's not just about Henry and the Church of England, the reformation caused upheaval in many places Luther was German for example.(LTW can correct me in this if I am wrong). True, and to continue with that, Up until the King James edition, the vagaries of editions of bible, were very much copy by copy, being much of it was down to how an individual monk copied by hand from one to the next previous to that in history, the King James edition made use of the rather new printing press to make the copies, and, part of the idea of the standardised issue, was they pre-agreed what would be in it, taking text from many many bibles and picking the ones that "worked" with standard Protestant ideology at that time. Being that the King James edition, is STILL in production, and is considered the very essence of a standardised edition, and that only a few changes have been made, and those changes are to update the language only, I think you have to agree, it worked?. The fact that it was a protestant book is the answer to why it is different to the catholic mind bender of you pay homage to rome type ideology, the King James left out all of that, it made more of religion than power structures of the church, it made each reader aware only of the historical origins of Christ, and less of the "your church is the ONLY path to god" ideology. So yeah, when writing the king Jakes, they did leave out a lot of catholic ideas. The doctrine of the Catholic church was very much why Protestant, "we" protest the idea that the church of Rome is the ONLY franchise to god and he only deals through the Pope. And that the Pope being a cash only for prayers was just wrong. How can it be that your prayers are only answered if the Pope gets a cut of your donation?. All religions under the cover of Christianity make their own version of the bible that makes up much of what they say is their version of Christianity. LDS Mormon Protestant Methodist Baptists Orthodox of many variety, the list is very long sorry if I missed any there, Presbyterian, Quakers, heck, here is the list on full if you want it, and this is just what we have in England under Christianity?.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominationsAll of them have their own bible version. The Jewish church also has serious discussion on the wording of their Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, which is in its self the origin of the "Old testament" in the Christianity bible, and if you look at the Muslim faith, they themselves have various versions of their own scriptures that they claim church-by-church can be transcribed many ways, indeed, the meaning of the bible or of any religious scripture is part of discussion of may faiths around the world with many senior religious leaders spending time daily trying to decipher the old scriptures "the right way". I could go on. In every faith in the world, there are "Versions" of their scriptures. Not forgetting the Dead Sea scrolls, that may have some of the missing gaps in what was included in the first official Bible.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 4, 2018 9:02:17 GMT
In my fathers time on board ship... They had a fair smattering of "foreign" workers literate in their own language but maybe not so much in English. If a notice was posted that HAD to be understood by all, it was common for the foreigners to crowd together around their nominated translator.
I would suggest that this was commonplace back in history... Semi-literate sailors would congregate around literate ones who would read aloud anything worthy of being read.
The fact that higher ranks were more literate and book smart than the rest was fait acompli.... You HAD to be to get that position, and if you were, then good men were always welcome to climb the ladder, and those who could read and do maths were escalated a lot faster. You wouldnt put a helmsman at the helm until he could follow a compass?. And then the Navigator would have to plot a course, and therefore have to know how to read map, the timings and exact position to make course corrections, when to divert to avoid known obstacles, all this is for an educated person. Being able to pull rope scrub deck and know the names of the sheets to pull was something you were shown and got experience, thats manual labour, thats where you start, it isnt where you finish if you have your wits about you?.
However...
Being on board ships was a great honour for many lower class families, for the kids, it was a form of education, and therefore, a better way of life, than maybe a migrant farm worker, who had NO income during winter.
Education came by being on board a ship, but wasnt necessarily a pre-requisite for getting on the ship in the first place...?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 4, 2018 14:51:47 GMT
Actually the are not exactly the same bibles, not only was the Catholic bible for many centuries only in Latin it actually contains several books that are not included in Protestant ones. There are several doctrinal differences between Protestant and Catholic Churches such as married clergy, the status of the Virgin Mary etc. The core belief is very similar between the two churches but there are important differences between the two of them. It's not just about Henry and the Church of England, the reformation caused upheaval in many places Luther was German for example.(LTW can correct me in this if I am wrong). True, and to continue with that, Up until the King James edition, the vagaries of editions of bible, were very much copy by copy, being much of it was down to how an individual monk copied by hand from one to the next previous to that in history, the King James edition made use of the rather new printing press to make the copies, and, part of the idea of the standardised issue, was they pre-agreed what would be in it, taking text from many many bibles and picking the ones that "worked" with standard Protestant ideology at that time. Being that the King James edition, is STILL in production, and is considered the very essence of a standardised edition, and that only a few changes have been made, and those changes are to update the language only, I think you have to agree, it worked?. The fact that it was a protestant book is the answer to why it is different to the catholic mind bender of you pay homage to rome type ideology, the King James left out all of that, it made more of religion than power structures of the church, it made each reader aware only of the historical origins of Christ, and less of the "your church is the ONLY path to god" ideology. So yeah, when writing the king Jakes, they did leave out a lot of catholic ideas. The doctrine of the Catholic church was very much why Protestant, "we" protest the idea that the church of Rome is the ONLY franchise to god and he only deals through the Pope. And that the Pope being a cash only for prayers was just wrong. How can it be that your prayers are only answered if the Pope gets a cut of your donation?. All religions under the cover of Christianity make their own version of the bible that makes up much of what they say is their version of Christianity. LDS Mormon Protestant Methodist Baptists Orthodox of many variety, the list is very long sorry if I missed any there, Presbyterian, Quakers, heck, here is the list on full if you want it, and this is just what we have in England under Christianity?.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominationsAll of them have their own bible version. The Jewish church also has serious discussion on the wording of their Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, which is in its self the origin of the "Old testament" in the Christianity bible, and if you look at the Muslim faith, they themselves have various versions of their own scriptures that they claim church-by-church can be transcribed many ways, indeed, the meaning of the bible or of any religious scripture is part of discussion of may faiths around the world with many senior religious leaders spending time daily trying to decipher the old scriptures "the right way". I could go on. In every faith in the world, there are "Versions" of their scriptures. Not forgetting the Dead Sea scrolls, that may have some of the missing gaps in what was included in the first official Bible. actually, the JW are the only ones who have THEIR OWN version of the bible, which of course, they claim is the only accurate one, because it is a word by word transliteration of an original text. also because their title uses "translation" instead of "version." LDS have a different doctrine, but it is in their supplementary book, and they can use any other bible, though they prefer the KJV. the thing I find most ironic is that King James ordered the translation because he wanted it to be readable by the common man - and most prefaces indicate he intended it to be retranslated periodically, there are a lot of people who think the original KJV is the authoritative translation - and yet have trouble reading it, because of the outdated formal language, which many people are not fluent in.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 4, 2018 16:06:14 GMT
The average professional sailor was most likely the son of a sailor and had been born and raised in a port town or fishing village. It isn't really know exactly how young they would have been before going to sea, but most likely between the age of 7-10. So this was not an honor, it was simply the family business and trade.
Warrant and Commissioned officers had far more varied backgrounds. As a general rule most were middle class, but Warrant officers could come from working class backgrounds. Commissioned officers tended to be middle class on the whole, usually from the upper middle class (simply because they were more likely to get some form of formal education). But their ranks also included Princes (King George IV served in the Royal Navy, although interestingly he was only given command on one ship as a Post-Captain as he was not highly regarded as a Captain). Commissioned officers seem to have started around 8 years old, and been strongly advised to spend at least a year on shore learning Maths at 12. Technically more than a few started their life at sea at 5, although this was because their names were put on ships books so they would have enough sea-time to pass one of the criteria for the Lieutenants exam. Again however there were variations to this. James Cook started his life at sea at 6 (I think) while Horatio Nelson didn't set foot on a ship until he was 12.
Culturally therefore the makeup of the Officers of the Royal Navy in the 1700's was actually rather diverse. The officers mess could include a Prince, son of a former Warrant officer, a sailor who'd come up from the lower deck and sons of serving officers. All serving under the command of a man who's father sailed colliers.
This is in comparison to the French Navy pre-revolution and the Spanish Navy. In both of these, and in fact the majority of Navies at the time, the entire officers mess would been comprised almost entirely of nobility. Commanded by someone who was also nobility.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 5, 2018 7:22:03 GMT
Which came to a head in the days of Spanish Armada, when the nobility on board "Outrank" the captain, receive orders that they disagree with, choose to ignore, and try to do things "their own way", which is neither benefit to the fleet or the ways of the sea, because some of them were lad-lubbers who had no right to "order" the captain around because that put individual ships at risk. Many of those nobility "Owned" their own ships, and couldnt wait to invade UK, hoping to get their own slice of land, Letters of the time kept by "Gods own civil servant" as he liked to be seen, the king of spain, who tried to micro-manage everything to minute detail, show the "nobility" of some of the ships in almost open revolt because they couldnt see the bigger plan and disagreed with the plans of the next ship's nobility and completely over-ride the captains orders.
Of course, History of UK doesnt show that on thrashing the armada, the Brits at that time decided to send an armada back to spain in the next few years that didnt go too well for the Brits, we got our backsides handed to us, but that was kind of swept under the carpet because we didnt win, and the king of spain re-organized his fleets, having less interfering nobility left on board...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2018 14:46:38 GMT
Which came to a head in the days of Spanish Armada, when the nobility on board "Outrank" the captain, receive orders that they disagree with, choose to ignore, and try to do things "their own way", which is neither benefit to the fleet or the ways of the sea, because some of them were lad-lubbers who had no right to "order" the captain around because that put individual ships at risk. Many of those nobility "Owned" their own ships, and couldnt wait to invade UK, hoping to get their own slice of land, Letters of the time kept by "Gods own civil servant" as he liked to be seen, the king of spain, who tried to micro-manage everything to minute detail, show the "nobility" of some of the ships in almost open revolt because they couldnt see the bigger plan and disagreed with the plans of the next ship's nobility and completely over-ride the captains orders. Of course, History of UK doesnt show that on thrashing the armada, the Brits at that time decided to send an armada back to spain in the next few years that didnt go too well for the Brits, we got our backsides handed to us, but that was kind of swept under the carpet because we didnt win, and the king of spain re-organized his fleets, having less interfering nobility left on board... home game vs. away game...
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Jan 6, 2018 22:25:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 7, 2018 10:11:24 GMT
Whereas I accept that Pirates were not all uneducated and have never argued that they didnt learn to read whilst on ship, and love the idea that Pirates were able to access books of any type, otherwise how would they learn to read, may I state I have a copy of Culpepers Complete Herbal on my bookshelf, also the complete works of shakespere in one volume, in this household, and anyone who visits, have access to those books, yet I am the only one so far to read either. This means nothing. Just because I have interest, doesnt mean my Kids have. They have a complete set of encyclopaedia Britannica donated by a rather "unique" grandparent, in the times before the internet was all it is now, doesnt mean they dont know some of the subjects already, but not by reading any of those tomes. There is a public library down the street here, I would love to be able to say that that means all the people in this locality are well read, but I would know that to do so would be a lie.
Especially the twerp that sees the sign "Please keep these gates clear at all times" but ignores it.... 'Nuf said on that one.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 7, 2018 11:12:07 GMT
Which came to a head in the days of Spanish Armada, when the nobility on board "Outrank" the captain, receive orders that they disagree with, choose to ignore, and try to do things "their own way", which is neither benefit to the fleet or the ways of the sea, because some of them were lad-lubbers who had no right to "order" the captain around because that put individual ships at risk. Many of those nobility "Owned" their own ships, and couldnt wait to invade UK, hoping to get their own slice of land, Letters of the time kept by "Gods own civil servant" as he liked to be seen, the king of spain, who tried to micro-manage everything to minute detail, show the "nobility" of some of the ships in almost open revolt because they couldnt see the bigger plan and disagreed with the plans of the next ship's nobility and completely over-ride the captains orders. Of course, History of UK doesnt show that on thrashing the armada, the Brits at that time decided to send an armada back to spain in the next few years that didnt go too well for the Brits, we got our backsides handed to us, but that was kind of swept under the carpet because we didnt win, and the king of spain re-organized his fleets, having less interfering nobility left on board... It was English fleet that went to Spain, the Scottish were a separate nation back then, so this one of those times the term the Brits is not appropriate to use.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2018 15:45:33 GMT
Whereas I accept that Pirates were not all uneducated and have never argued that they didnt learn to read whilst on ship, and love the idea that Pirates were able to access books of any type, otherwise how would they learn to read, may I state I have a copy of Culpepers Complete Herbal on my bookshelf, also the complete works of shakespere in one volume, in this household, and anyone who visits, have access to those books, yet I am the only one so far to read either. This means nothing. Just because I have interest, doesnt mean my Kids have. They have a complete set of encyclopaedia Britannica donated by a rather "unique" grandparent, in the times before the internet was all it is now, doesnt mean they dont know some of the subjects already, but not by reading any of those tomes. There is a public library down the street here, I would love to be able to say that that means all the people in this locality are well read, but I would know that to do so would be a lie. Especially the twerp that sees the sign "Please keep these gates clear at all times" but ignores it.... 'Nuf said on that one. true. if someone told me they had done a study and found that READING rates (expressed as a value of the number of words read per day, whether average or by demographic breakdown) are equivalent to reading rates at times before any attempt at universal literacy, I would be inclined to accept the claim at face value. people, today, can read, but don't.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 7, 2018 16:17:01 GMT
Define 'Read'.
If you mean picking up a book and reading that for entertainment, then yes there are fewer people doing that.
However if you mean reading in general then there are MORE people reading today than ever before; based on percentage of people who can read rather than pure numbers. Using the internet requires reading even if all you are doing is watching YouTube videos.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2018 17:09:01 GMT
Define 'Read'. If you mean picking up a book and reading that for entertainment, then yes there are fewer people doing that. However if you mean reading in general then there are MORE people reading today than ever before; based on percentage of people who can read rather than pure numbers. Using the internet requires reading even if all you are doing is watching YouTube videos. I was referring to any use of written/printed word to convey information for any purpose. - which leaves a grey ares of if you go to this sign for your coffee, are you reading or are you using an image: due to our level of information technology, we process a much higher percentage of information through formats other than print than in earlier eras. the best illustration of this is to look at public fora and see the high incidence of people using the incorrect homophone in posts - which comes from the fact that with most information transferred audibly rather than visually, people distinguish between meaning by context rather than by spelling, and use the spelling they are most familiar with that produces the right sound. so the conclusion that leads to me being willing to accept such a claim at face value: it isn't that modern people can't read - it is that our society has formatted itself in such a way that it has deemed reading as one of multiple choices of getting information, and the bulk of information is usually gotten though formats other than reading. case in point, text messaging is carried out as much through emoji as through words, now. even people like me, who favor reading, get a lot of our entertainment or ancillary information though a video screen. my final analysis is that baseline reading requirements are higher now, than in times before universal literacy, but less than they were before the ready availability of video, and advanced reading requirements are lower than they were before video was available as an option - by which I mean pre-video, the only way to get information as reading or live lecture, whereas now there is reading, live lecture, broadcast lecture, or recorded lecture. so while reading ability is more universal, it is not practiced in the volumes that it was practiced in before other media was readily available.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 7, 2018 18:38:41 GMT
You've just discribed the history of the English language.
If you look at languages you realise that they can be treated as a form of life, in that words change and mutate over time to better fit the enviroment in which they live. Those languages that don't or can't change eventually become extinct.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2018 1:56:58 GMT
You've just discribed the history of the English language. If you look at languages you realise that they can be treated as a form of life, in that words change and mutate over time to better fit the enviroment in which they live. Those languages that don't or can't change eventually become extinct. does this mean you're going to stop putting extra letters in color and parlor?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2018 10:31:51 GMT
You've just discribed the history of the English language. If you look at languages you realise that they can be treated as a form of life, in that words change and mutate over time to better fit the enviroment in which they live. Those languages that don't or can't change eventually become extinct. does this mean you're going to stop putting extra letters in color and parlor? Nope, its means we will STOP taking the letters out of Colour, and learn how to pronounce aluminium. And learn that enviroment is spelt environment. Although I dont know the reason for the "n", its there for some reason. It is, however, silent, like the "p" in swimming baths. I totally abhor the dictatorial "you WILL do it this way" approach to "Absolute" ways of spelling, especially the I and E and one before the other except in the case of majority thing, but tomato tomayto, you do it your way, we stick to the original, its how we retain being British, Brits love rules, even if it is to just break them a few times. That and of course I am sexdaily, exlaidys, dexailys, slydexia, aww buther the duck, I cant spell propper?.. dyslexia
I have a loaded firefox spell chuckler and I aint scared to use it.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2018 15:16:52 GMT
does this mean you're going to stop putting extra letters in color and parlor? Nope, its means we will STOP taking the letters out of Colour, and learn how to pronounce aluminium. And learn that enviroment is spelt environment. Although I dont know the reason for the "n", its there for some reason. It is, however, silent, like the "p" in swimming baths. I totally abhor the dictatorial "you WILL do it this way" approach to "Absolute" ways of spelling, especially the I and E and one before the other except in the case of majority thing, but tomato tomayto, you do it your way, we stick to the original, its how we retain being British, Brits love rules, even if it is to just break them a few times. That and of course I am sexdaily, exlaidys, dexailys, slydexia, aww buther the duck, I cant spell propper?.. dyslexia
I have a loaded firefox spell chuckler and I aint scared to use it.so it is pronounced "col-hour"? and the "n" in en- vire-en-ment isn't silent.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 9, 2018 7:21:33 GMT
In England, where we invented the language, Colour is pronounced cull-or, except when cool-hour is a "Birmingham" accent, environment is pronounced en-viro-ment, anyone who pronounces the "n" is either reading aloud or following the spelling with a finger still?. This I gotta laugh at, me taking stick from a Yank over how to use the bloody language WE invented here?. Although, you do wonder, them from Hartlepool and Newcastle, maybe they read the instruction manual wrong?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2018 10:20:52 GMT
In England, where we invented the language, Colour is pronounced cull-or, except when cool-hour is a "Birmingham" accent, environment is pronounced en-viro-ment, anyone who pronounces the "n" is either reading aloud or following the spelling with a finger still?. This I gotta laugh at, me taking stick from a Yank over how to use the bloody language WE invented here?. Although, you do wonder, them from Hartlepool and Newcastle, maybe they read the instruction manual wrong?. actually, on further thought, our pronounciation is "en- viron-mint" in which "viron" is pronounced like iron, with a "v" sound on the front. thing is, us western yanks actually have what is probably the closest to unaccented speech as was said in an article discussed on the board a half year or so ago. even your english accent was artificially applied by the fashion industry after we broke loose, and Mr. Webster, when he codified yank spelling mainly did away with superfluous letters. so we simply pronounce the majority of the letters in the word in the order they were written, and leave out most of the glottal stops and punctuation, so the word comes out mostly smoothly. - but then when we adopt a word from a different language, we try to adopt it with most of the inflections intact. so we don't drive "nisin" we drive "knee-sahn"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 10, 2018 10:42:53 GMT
I ak the next 100 people I see, and they will all say en-viro-ment, or en-viro-munt, en-viro-mint, dependant on how far north you go, you may just get "Wildlife", oot-doors, but I didsnt hear one person say the n in years?. except one posh twit politician who sort of made it sound like he was trying a foreign language course because he was minister for traffic of counting cones or fishing for rubber tyres or something?.
I dont real care fur whut yer fink it shud sahnd likes, I knows yer understanding whats I says, even iffs I am using wot dem kids rahnd der streets dun talk like in sum parts, yer feelin me?.
You have your ways, I talk like a write, I am a naturalised Northener, and thanfulk for it, because if I spoke the proper Queens english, it IS a foreign accent, and it doesnt just sound like I got a sliver spoon up me jacksy, it sounds like a full 200 piece silver service set. We still get a smile out of how you Yanks cant spell, and I have had many an argument in the past of the grammar natzi's, I laugh a lot when I gets a Yank one trying to tell me to get with the program, and I correct them, its spelt Programme, and they cant see the irony. Then to rub salt in their wound, when its obvious they lost, BIG time, I play the slydexia card...
BTW, this isnt an argument I am having with TLW folks, just to set it straight, we are just discussing the differences between a thousand mile of water and the same language.
If we met, we would still be understood, and I dont think any of us would be so pedantic to correct each others spoken words would we?. Heck if we met, I would bring Oziris with me, and I bet his English is better than some kids leaving school these days?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 10, 2018 15:06:22 GMT
I ak the next 100 people I see, and they will all say en-viro-ment, or en-viro-munt, en-viro-mint, dependant on how far north you go, you may just get "Wildlife", oot-doors, but I didsnt hear one person say the n in years?. except one posh twit politician who sort of made it sound like he was trying a foreign language course because he was minister for traffic of counting cones or fishing for rubber tyres or something?. I dont real care fur whut yer fink it shud sahnd likes, I knows yer understanding whats I says, even iffs I am using wot dem kids rahnd der streets dun talk like in sum parts, yer feelin me?. You have your ways, I talk like a write, I am a naturalised Northener, and thanfulk for it, because if I spoke the proper Queens english, it IS a foreign accent, and it doesnt just sound like I got a sliver spoon up me jacksy, it sounds like a full 200 piece silver service set. We still get a smile out of how you Yanks cant spell, and I have had many an argument in the past of the grammar natzi's, I laugh a lot when I gets a Yank one trying to tell me to get with the program, and I correct them, its spelt Programme, and they cant see the irony. Then to rub salt in their wound, when its obvious they lost, BIG time, I play the slydexia card... BTW, this isnt an argument I am having with TLW folks, just to set it straight, we are just discussing the differences between a thousand mile of water and the same language. If we met, we would still be understood, and I dont think any of us would be so pedantic to correct each others spoken words would we?. Heck if we met, I would bring Oziris with me, and I bet his English is better than some kids leaving school these days?. get with the progra-ma-me? is Je-fa-fa on it?
|
|