Miscellaneous desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 29

Brick wall full of random holes

In the opening credits of the movie Suddenly, Last Summer, we see a brick wall full of holes in no particular pattern. Here's a still: [1]. Note that there were many more holes than those in the frame of this pic. They were obviously cut there intentionally. What's the purpose of these holes ? StuRat (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly putlog holes ? Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but I would have expected a more regular pattern if that's the case. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article shows them at staged heights, as do some pictures on google images. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across something similar when I was studying architecture a while back, I can't remember all the details, but I think something about drainage, getting damp out from inside the walls, if that's the case here, there'd be something set back within the holes, possibly a vapour barrier, that is a sheet that only lets damp air out and not in. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of certain cars

Is there a website that shows pictures of the cars I want to see how they look like? The following vehicles are: Peugeot 604 van, Peugeot 304 van, Peugeot 204 van, and Peugeot 305 panel van. --70.31.19.229 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Have you tried Google Images [2] ? StewieCartman (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website www.parkers.co.uk (website of Parker's Car Guides) has photos of most cars available and also includes both professional written reviews but also owner reviews too. Some content is behind a paywall but I think that's mostly for older cars beyond a certain age. ny156uk (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one ask a rabbi/pastor/priest/minister about a certain biblical verse or set of verses in the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament)?

How does one, namely a person who is unaffiliated with any religious denomination or sect, find the appropriate time to ask a rabbi/pastor/priest/minister about a denominational interpretation of a certain biblical verse or set of verses in the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament), out of personal interest rather than merely an academic exercise? By the way, where do those people get their knowledge anyway? Is hermeneutics passed down orally, from teacher to student, or written down on paper? And is it possible to find an interfaith, ecumenical interpretation of the Bible? Sneazy (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can just call your local rabbi/pastor/priest/minister and tell them you'd like to ask some questions, and how that can be arranged. You may, however, want to make sure you don't accidentally call a rabid/pastor/priest/monster. They will invite you over then eat your brains. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mild off-topic joking

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I sense sarcasm in your second sentence. Sneazy (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that is not technically sarcasm, someone will know the correct term. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a joke. --Jayron32 23:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catachresis, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try AskMoses.com. You can also try seeing if your question has already been asked. It's quite likely: the OT/Hebrew Bible has been fairly well examined over the last few millennia. In traditional Judaism, the classic commentary is that of medieval commentator Rashi and you can find his comments for yourself at this site. Bear in mind a few things: 1) there are many other commentaries 2) Rashi rarely recorded his questions, only his answers. "What's bothering Rashi?" is a good question to ask... and the title of a book that has sold quite well. 3) Rashi's answers are rarely his own: he usually records his preference from the explanations of ancient midrashic texts. More information in the article about him I linked above.

Finally, you can post your question/s here, and depend on the goodwill of our volunteers to do the legwork for you (which is not the same as indulging themselves in OR and answering for themselves, because of course, we wouldn't dream of doing that) --Dweller (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of the Bible is called exegesis or hermeneutics. There are bibles which have extensive Marginalia where a particular theologian has provided exegetic commentary regarding certain passages. You may find that helpful. Be aware, however, that Christian and Jewish traditions are very diverse, and exegesis will vary between the esoteric and mystical (Kabbalah for example) to the straight forward (many Protestant traditions hold to "read it and come up with your own meaning", and discourage excessive commentary. See Sola scriptura, a common Protestant tradition as part of the Five Solae, which holds that the scripture is sufficient in itself to provide its own full meaning, and does not require any special knowledge or training. See also Clarity of scripture). --Jayron32 23:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" an interfaith, ecumenical interpretation of the Bible" is likely to be one disagreed on by all parties. Cynical, probably. True, definitely. --Dweller (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I have purchased a very ecumenical bible version. It's the New Oxford Annotated Bible of the New Revised Standard Version (3rd Edition). Surely, the editors come from multiple faith backgrounds and somehow work together in annotating. What do you mean by "cynical"? What do you mean by "true"? Can you explain by writing in complete sentences? Sneazy (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a particular version of the Bible was put together by people with many different faith backgrounds does not mean that they speak for the entirety of those faiths. Or any faiths. Or any people other than themselves. There is no one "right" version of the Bible. There will always be lack of agreement about the meaning of any biblical passage you could possibly choose. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't talk about "right" version of the Bible. I understand that there are many interpretations, and I do keep that in mind. :P Sneazy (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good scholars can distinguish between facts and interpretations. As an example, Isaiah uses the Hebrew almah ("young women") to describe the mother of the messiah. The new testament cites the original prophecy in the Greek translation "parthenos" (virgin). A scholarly approach would list and discuss that fact. It would even, possibly, discuss the question if the author fo Matthew knew about this difference or not, and if his choice was intentional. All this can be done without coming to a conclusion about the truth of the religious belief in a virgin birth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas carol "Silent Night" weds all these ideas in the line about the "round young virgin". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, a "virgin" may be interpreted as a "young girl" or "maiden". I suspect the technical distinction between "virgin" and "maiden" and "young girl" is a modern invention. Sneazy (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You've got that sideways. Virgin has always meant virgin. The claim is (I haven't investigated its truth) that the Aramaic word translated as virgin in the Latin bible could have meant virgin or just young girl. And it's round ((yon virgin mother) and (child)), of course, for those not familiar. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to be obnoxious, but if you look a few comments up, you can see that its not Aramaic (the language of Jesus), but Biblical Hebrew (although they may share this particular word), and its not the Latin bible (I assume you mean the Vulgate), but the "original" Koine Greek of the New Testament that introduced the "virgin" meaning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes no sense, since there would be no stories in Hebrew about Mary. I mentioned the Vulgate because the Greek New Testament obviously doesn't use the Latin word virgo, which is what Sneazy referred to. The argument itself seems tortured and has an obvious POV. "We don't literally want Mary to be a virgin, so we will point out that the Hebrew word from the Torah meaning virgin could also just mean maiden"? I am an atheist, but not an anti-Christian. I have heard the "means young girl" argument before. But the person I was arguing with was an author who believed Jesus' existence itself was a hoax. His "scholarship" was tendentious and narrowly self-limited. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Matthew, Isaiah 7:14 (Hebrew) is a prophecy of Jesus-the-messiah, and he uses the Greek "parthenos" instead of the Hebrew "almah" to describe the mother of said messiah (which is not named in Isaiah, but, by context, presumably Mary in Matthew's view). That may be because the author of Matthew was a "modern" Jew, and as such his primary language was Koine Greek, and possibly did not even speak Hebrew. Anyways, that is where the "virgin birth" concept comes into the Bible. The original language of the New Testament is Greek, and the early Latin versions just translated the Greek text, both of Matthew, but also of the Old Testament Septuagint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the Vulgate OT was translated by Jerome from the Hebrew, not from the Septuagint. The Vetus Latina was translated from the Septuagint, and predates Jerome by a few decades, but it hasn't had nearly the level of influence of the Vulgate, and in any case the damage done to the source text's meaning by the LXX's parthenos had been done long before any Latin translation came along. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally speaking, the terms "virgin", "maiden" and "young girl" would all have meant the same thing, wouldn't they? A girl not married (and not a harlot) would naturally be assumed to be a virgin, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely not. Marriage is a fuzzy concept in pre-modern societies, and the obsession with virginity, purity, and (no) sex is a fairly late invention, in particular for commoners. Take a look at renaissance Italy - everybody who was somebody was illegitimate (and half where descended from clergy, or even the pope). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. (It's not often I disagree with Stefan.) The word "maid", for example, means "young girl", "unmarried girl". Virgin" if you give the benefit of the doubt. And you do give he benefit of the doubt. As with "jeune fille" in French. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Maiden" is etymologically equivalent to "virgin".[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Bugs' reference: "Maid Marian, one of Robin Hood's companions, first recorded 1520s, perhaps from French, where Robin et Marian have been stock names for country lovers since 13c" (emphasis mine). I don't really know the cultural context of Isaiah's time (given that there are three of them, and writing about even earlier times), but the bible is fairly generous about people "knowing" each other, and to provoke shock, it needs things like rape coupled with incest (cf. Lot - and he is supposed to be the righteous one, offering his daughters to the mob and all). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there are many websites discussing the matter. But calling a local rabbi would be an excellent idea. It's kinda like their job to know stuff about the O.T. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget the Turing test. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]