Chilean Volcano Erupts May 6, 2008
Posted by Michael in News.trackback
You’ve probably read about the devastating volcanic eruption in Chile. Here is an amazing pic of the eruption at night while an electrical storm was developing.
Chilean volcano Chaiten spewed lava and blasted ash 12 miles into the sky today, prompting officials to order a total evacuation of nearby area.
More than 4,000 people have already fled since the volcano in Patagonia sprang to life on Thursday, but today provincial governor Fernando Aguilar ordered 280 more to leave immediately.
Witnesses reported hearing immense noises like groans coming from the volcano.
“The situation has changed suddenly,” said a spokesman for Chile’s national emergency office.
“Today the volcano is erupting with pyroclastic material on a different scale.”.
Incredible picture of Chilean volcano erupting as lightning storm brews overhead | the Daily Mail
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Innocent Bystanders 
That’s a Chilean volcano? Huh. I would have guessed it was Hillary’s campaign office as the poll numbers come in tonight.
The government of Mauritania just resigned.
Nothing about the resignation on CNN.com. I don’t see anything on the BBC in English either (although I found the story on BBC Arabic).
Also from the BBC: “Eritrea army ‘entered Djibouti.'” Giggle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7385690.stm
Can you imagine if Congress just quit? How crazy would that be?
And the recent comments are mine. All Mine!
Mwa-hah-hah-hah!!!
Spectacular photos.
“as lightning storm brews overhead…”
I was under the impression that volcanic eruptions kind of create their own weather, especially lightning from all the particulates in the air.
Talk about being High in Fecal Particle Density!
That’s one incredible photo. It would be such a rush to view that live.
Very cool post Michael.
And that cloud of dust 12 miles in the air just undid at least a couple years worth of global warming. Time to up my carbon footprint to stave off the volcanic winter.
And someone claims that global warming caused this in…3…2…1…
And to think…with all the environmentalists in this great country, no one has pressured Congress to ban volcanoes.
Add in a dragon and a UFO shooting lasers, and that’s what I drew on all of my folders in middle school. Through college.
Pretty cool looking, I linked it in the AoS headlines.
shocked: MALAYSIA MAKE NEW RULES FOR CHRISTIANS!!
EVERY CHRISTIANS MUST SAY “ALLAH” RATHER THAN “GOD” & DONT SAY “TRINITY” ANYMORE..
This is because English language not suitable anymore because the original Bible is in Arabic.
The full story is here: ckasih.blogspot.com
Okay, that story about the Bible and Allah and whatnot is a crock of bovine excretions.
The original language of the Bible was Aramaic, then Greek. The Old Testament was/is in Hebrew (with a few elements of Aramaic).
The story alleges that Christians want to use “Allah” because it’s closer to what God is. In fact, the entire thread is nothing but a crock of idiotic “Islam-is-right-and-them-Christians-are-wrong” rhetoric without any basis in fact.
Also, trying to decipher the atrocious English on that page will make one’s head hurt.
The original language of the Bible was Aramaic, then Greek. The Old Testament was/is in Hebrew (with a few elements of Aramaic).
Actually, although Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic every day, the original language of the written New Testament was Koine Greek (apart from a few direct Aramaic quotes), then the lingua franca of the Roman Empire . It was never written in Aramaic.
Thus, when you read the words of Jesus in the Bible, you are reading a translation from Aramaic to Greek (by the author) and from Greek to English (by some modern translator). Translation of most of the New Testament, like the letters of Paul, have only gone through one iteration — Koine to English. It used to be much worse when the Latin Vulgate translation was in the loop before someone (normally a priest) orally translated the words into a native language at a time when there were no native language translations and almost everyone was illiterate.
Martin Luther, by the way, started the whole fad of native language Bibles. His German translation was based on Greek and Hebrew texts, not the Vulgate. Anyone could read the Bible for themselves. They did not have to know Latin, or content themselves with the texts selected and translated from Latin by the clergy. That was a revolutionary idea at the time. The clergy suddenly were no longer the exclusive keepers of access to the Word.
“It was never written in Aramaic.”
I’ve wondered about that. Certainly the oldest texts we have are in Greek. And given that Luke’s audience was probably the Greeks, that would be the most natural choice for his gospel. But Mark wrote primarily to the Romans, and Matthew wrote to Hebrews. Yes, educated people would have spoken Greek throughout the empire (cf. Acts 22:2, where the Jews are surprised to hear Paul speaking Hebrew).
But Irenaeus thought that at least Matthew’s gospel was written in Hebrew. And there are other textual reasons to make me wonder about source language. For example, Rev. 9:11 says “And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.” That’s a strange thing to say if you are writing in Hebrew or Greek. See also Rev. 16:16. In his gospel, John explains that a certain pool is “called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.” John 5:2.
“Martin Luther, by the way, started the whole fad of native language Bibles.”
What am I, chopped liver?
Actually, I invented native translations.
That happens all the time, Sobek, where the authors writing in Greek explain Hebrew expressions or names to those who might not be familiar with both. They are trying to avoid confusion.
You see the same thing with the reference to Jesus praying to “Abba, which means Father.” Abba is the original Aramaic, which the author then translated to Greek. It’s actually closer to “Daddy” than “Father.” The author is making a point — the disciples were astounded that Jesus would address God this way. Previously, God had been described as the father of Israel, but it was inconceivable at the time that anyone would consider God as a personal father figure.
It’s my understanding that Hebrew was only revived as a living spoken language after the state of Israel was formed. Prior to then, it mostly survived as a static liturgical and legal language (like Latin) that had to be learned by Jewish males who spoke something else, like Yiddish (from which we get all common “Jewish” expressions like, for example, “putz” is the Yiddish word for “Brewfan”). In the case of Jesus and his contemporaries, Aramaic was the local language and Koine was the necessary international language (like English today or Latin formerly). Koine is not the same as classical Greek, it is a much later dialect of Greek — sort of like Creole English. You only learn it today to study the New Testament, not the classic Greek writings.
“Schmuck” is a similar Yiddish word which also means someone like Brewfan.
So why did Irenaeus think that Matthew was written in Hebrew?
So why did Irenaeus think that Matthew was written in Hebrew?
I don’t know, but I would guess that he graduated from a Baptist seminary.
Many scholars think that Mark is the oldest Gospel, and really represents the “Gospel of Peter” as written by Mark. Peter was likely illiterate, and Matthew draws heavily on Mark. So it doesn’t make much sense to me to tag Matthew as having been originally written in Hebrew and then translated. There is no surviving ancient text of any New Testament book in anything other than Koine.
In terms of content, the book of Hebrews should have been written in Hebrew, because it is specifically addressed to Jews and Jewish theological themes, especially the issue of sacrifices. Hebrews is way more Jewish than Matthew, which is another life-narrative of Jesus with some Jewish spin, e.g., the fulfillment of OT prophecy and Jesus as the Son of David.
“…where the authors writing in Greek explain Hebrew expressions…”
Yes, and some of my quotes underscore that point. But the Rev. 9:11 quote does the same thing with Greek, which the author would (presumably) not have to do if he were a Greek writer addressing a Greek audience. Hence, possible evidence of Aramaic composition.
Koine is a simplified version of classical Greek. If you’re going to have a lingua franca, it needs to be accessible, and not everyone had the time and resources to go train at an academy to get as fluid as Plato. Like modern Farsi and Turkish, both of which were deliberately simplified with the advent of the printing press.
Sandy, I don’t know why Irenaeus thought it. But he writes that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” Against Heresies, III.1.1. That surprised me when I first read it, but considering his audience it’s not at all impossible.
Michael said: “There is no surviving ancient text of any New Testament book in anything other than Koine.”
Depends on how you define “ancient.” There are Ethiopic and Syriac texts from the first few centuries after Christ. They survived better on the margins of the Roman Church’s domain, where the heresy hunters had less capacity to destroy what they viewed as heterodoxical works.
Michael also said: “I don’t know, but I would guess that he graduated from a Baptist seminary.”
Heh. This from the guy who thought “nothing new under the sun” is from Job.
Many scholars think that Mark is the oldest Gospel
I agree but should note that some scholars don’t believe the gospel was written until after Peter died (after 67 but before 70 AD) which would make Luke’s gospel earlier.
P.S. I’m rubber, you’re glue…
Heh. This from the guy who thought “nothing new under the sun” is from Job.
zing!
Brewfan is a meshugener!
How long will you kvetch about one minor mistake!!!
Oy, don’t get all verklempt, poor schlemiel.
gawd, you morons could fuck up an anvil.
To be annoying, it was Sobek who was kvetching. BrewFan was just tagging along.
Indeed, for a long time Hebrew was purely a liturgical language, used only for prayers, the Hebrew Bible, and the Mishnah (part of the Talmud). But Aramaic was the lingua franca, much like Yiddish has become for ultra-Orthodox who don’t want to sully the holy language by using it for profane purposes. The Talmud, for example, is a mixture of the two. The Mishnah is quoted in Hebrew, and it surrounded by rabbinic commentary (the Gemara) in Aramaic. This commentary was in Aramaic because by then Hebrew had fallen into disuse as a common language, and if the rabbis wanted more people to understand they would have to write in Aramaic.
Some of the most common prayers in the Jewish prayerbook are in Aramaic. The Kaddish, of which the most common version is the Mourner’s Kaddish, is in Aramaic.
And for centuries, Jews studied the Bible in Aramaic. This is where the Chumash came from: back then it contained the text of the Torah (and perhaps the haftarot and five megillot) with a translation right by its side. The most common translation was Targum Onqelos (“the Translation of Onqelos”; Sobek might be interested to know that “targum” is related to the Arabic “tarjumah” which means “translation”; “Onqelos” was the name of the translator), which was an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text. And while most people would not understand the Hebrew text, they’d understand the Aramaic gloss.
Now, the situation is reversed. Many Jewish scholars still read Targum Onqelos to preserve their knowledge of Aramaic (and one must know Aramaic in order to understand the Gemara portion of the Talmud) and to see just how the Aramaic translated the Hebrew. Targum Onqelos does not translate the Hebrew exactly: it modifies the more literal descriptions of God, for example, and makes the text fit Jewish conceptions.
This is why I had assumed some of the early Gospels may have been in Aramaic. But it seems I sit corrected.
Did you know when Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”) He quoted in Aramaic, not in Hebrew? The Hebrew says: “Eli, Eli, lama ‘azavtani” whereas the New Testament says the Lord spake: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46) or “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” (Mark 15:34).
For the record, second to the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox have been translating the Bible earlier. Most certainly earlier than any Protestant. What is strange is that no site I have been to today on translations of the Bible discusses Eastern Orthodox translations.
Did you know when Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 (”My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” ) He quoted in Aramaic, not in Hebrew?
Um, yes: My Redeemer Lives
Eastern Orthodox have been translating the Bible earlier. Most certainly earlier than any Protestant.
Oh c’mon. Those guys with beards and funny hats don’t count.
Many Jewish scholars still read Targum Onqelos to preserve their knowledge of Aramaic (and one must know Aramaic in order to understand the Gemara portion of the Talmud) and to see just how the Aramaic translated the Hebrew. Targum Onqelos does not translate the Hebrew exactly: it modifies the more literal descriptions of God, for example, and makes the text fit Jewish conceptions.
You know, I think Muslihoon just makes up stuff like this because he assumes we’re too dumb or lazy to check it out for ourselves. He’s right about that, but still, I’m offended.
An interesting argument on things Biblical:
Regarding Jesus’ words in Aramaic and Michael’s photographic memory of all his posts: I sit corrected once again.