Would have been nice if the question mentioned the US then…

sips tea

I’m not talking about inheritance though. I’m talking about when a farm takes on a family member as the new management. Because that’s literally nepotism.

(Without getting too much into semantics, isn’t headhunting a new boss at a company a type of nepotism? As in, there wasn’t a competitive process, they were hand-picked by the board / CEO. Is “nepotism” only meant specifically where someone’s incompetence is overlooked because of family relationship? If they’re actually the best person for the job is that still nepotism?)

When they bomb the hospital I’d say you have a point. But until then it seems to me to be a flex to show how completely compromised Hezbollah’s communications are. Israel are daring them to go get the gold out. (I am giving Hezbollah some credit that they can hide gold slightly better than a cursory glance round some offices by a BBC crew would reveal. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe they would actually hide gold in a hospital but YMMV…)

Obviously if they did move it they would be tracked every inch to their secondary location. It is psyops but - if we’re a little less cynical - I think it’s Israel Vs Hezbollah psyops.

That to me to make a little more sense as a primary motive. Israel wants to discredit Hezbollah leadership above all else. So what better way to do it than advertise that they’re powerless to go and retrieve part of their treasury?

Do you think family farms should not be passed to children? Or where would you draw the line?

Personally, I would have claimed Hezbollah were using it as a HQ / meeting place. Because there is no physical evidence of that, and it’s far more likely to be taken by people to be a warning of bombing. Which would have the panic effect you mention.

Claiming there’s a pile of gold there is just strange. A) it’s quite easy to show there isn’t (assuming Hezbollah haven’t just moved it already) and b) it’s not really a warning of bombing. One would expect Israel to drop special forces in and confiscate the gold, not blow it up…

The issue with pure capitalism is that it reduces people’s interactions to their economic value but some people do not have economic value, or have little economic value and no power to redress it. So capitalism can be efficient but can also be efficiently cold hearted.

Nepotism is only an issue where owners define it as an issue. Obviously the workforce at large stands to benefit from meritocracy but so do shareholders. In a free market, inadequate appointments due to nepotism should put a company at a disadvantage. But compare that with a family farm where the owners (shareholders) might prefer nepotism (appointment of a son/daughter to management) rather than opening the role to the job market. Few people object to this small scale nepotism, but should they object if shareholders of a large corporation wanted to do the same? Isn’t it their money after all? The chief issues with nepotism are when it’s done against the wishes of the owners of the company. But this is increasingly difficult with shareholder approval of board members and so on.

Obviously nepotism into monopolistic companies is a problem because of lack of competition but this only joins all the other problems already caused by monopolies.

In a healthy capitalism, competition is maintained. And if that’s done then the risks presented by nepotism are diminished because poor appointments ought to lead to poor results.

Ironically, it’s in extensive socialist state monopolies that nepotism is most dangerous primarily because of the decreased market competition.

It just seems like an odd thing to claim. If it were true it gives Hezbollah notice to move it all somewhere else (which, let’s be neutral, may have happened). If it’s a complete lie, it doesn’t justify bombing a hospital and you just end with journalists like the BBC walking around saying “no there isn’t”.

So either way it just seems like an odd announcement to make.

They haven’t destroyed the hospital though?

I’m not sure what the point of all this is? As if gold was going to be stacked in a broom cupboard or something.

If the bunker is real the entrance is going to be under a dusty mat at the back of an office under a pile of chairs. Not a door off corridor B.

If it’s made up, not sure what Israel gains from that particular lie since it’s so easy for the likes of BBC to put out a video like the above.

What happens when a Chinese person immigrates to the US and wants to bring their car with them?

There’s nothing quite like buying a new one of some lost thing and upon deciding on the perfect place to keep it, finding the original…

Since you asked nicely :)

A few more where “churchy” words are invented rather than the bog standard everyday term that was used…

Repent - this just straight up means “change your mind” (perhaps “change your heart / ways”). It doesn’t connote anything to do with church confession or being on your knees or talking to a church leader. It sort of means “sort yourself out”. I find it slightly more endearing (and less preachy) to imagine first century Jewish men walking around Judea saying “change your ways! The rule of God is about to happen!”. That almost sounds exciting. Artificially translating it as a word that we nearly never use outside of a church context makes “repent!” sounds far more judgemental and confrontational than it actually is.

Apostle - this means being “sent out” and there are far more suitable everyday words that mean exactly what a first century hearer would have heard. “Emissary” is one. But also the sense of “ambassador”. So Jesus appoints 12 ambassadors to go out and spread the message. Makes sense. It ties far more nicely with the fact that Jesus conceived of a “government of God” that was heavenly rather than earthly. So since we already have a well working concept of an ambassador for that, there’s no need to keep the Greek and invent a church word like “apostle”. (I also think “ambassador” trends to spell out the special role that these original people had being sent directly by Jesus, whereas there are all sorts of Christian sects today using the title “apostle” in a somewhat casual way that I think, in part, is because no-one knows what an “apostle” is - it’s a church word - and that means the meaning can be bent at will)

Deacon - this just straight up means “helper”. In Acts 6 the “ambassadors” find that haven’t enough time to distribute food, so 7 helpers (deaconos) are recruited. Less high faluting, and far more down to earth. Every assembly of believers has a helper or two. Makes sense.

Presbyter - this is a church leader in some branches of church. It means “elder”. Through the new testament, the believer communities have multiple “elders” the same way any village would have its own gathering of elders. It was a mundane everyday social role that connoted maturity and wisdom. Timothy, a young leader appointed by Paul, gets told not to worry that he’s young for this reason. When Paul finally goes up to Jerusalem to meet Peter and the other original believers after many years he’s not even interested in “job titles”. He just seeks out “those reputed to be pillars of the community” (Galatians 2:9). Leadership in the new testament was far more relational and communal that the profession it turned into. Keeping the original mundane descriptive terms (which were not job titles) would help with this.

Pastor - means shepherd. I’ll let this one pass because “Pastor Barney” sounds infinitely less weird than having “Shepherd Jim” and “Shepherd Tom”. Though I believe these are some corners of Christianity where this is done. Even so, no-one has the title “pastor” in the new testament. And Jesus positively discourages the disciples from using titles in multiple places.

Bishop - again this is from a Greek word that’s ended creating its own word instead of being translated. It originates from the Greek word “overseer”. Or, perhaps even more mundanely, “manager”. In the new testament it’s somewhat interchangeable with “elder”.

Priest - this is a complicated one. In the old testament, the people doing the sacrifices at the temple were kohen. We translate that now as “priest” in English but - badly. As we saw above in the new testament the new Christian communities had elders (or managers) with a handful of helpers. The word for elder - the Greek presbyteros - is what eventually morphed into the English “priest”. But this simply meant an elder in a community and had nothing to do with offering sacrifices in a temple. So why in English translations is it the old testament temple workers who are called “priests” whereas the new testament leaders are now called “elders”? Well. In the first century, having communities of believers looked after by elders had a distinctly communal feel and was a far cry from the old Jewish temple system, lead by “sacred men” who did the sacrifices. However, Christian thought slowly evolved to understand that even though Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross had done away with the need for the Jewish temple system, the “elders” in church were sort of invoking Jesus’ sacrifice when they organised the communion meal (eucharist). So eventually what started as a mundane word for village elder came to absorb the idea of being a holy man making sacrifices, a “priest” by our modern understanding of the word. So then both new testament leaders and Jewish temple leaders got called “priests” even though the words used for their respective roles in the bible are totally different. But this suited the then Catholic church just fine, as it had evolved to see a similarity of sorts between the old temple priests and the new church priests. Then the reformation happened (16th century). And a bunch of Bible scholars said “wait a minute… these aren’t the same thing at all” and on their way out of the Catholic church as Protestants they decided the new testament leaders are very much not making sacrifices and if the old testament is going to have “priests” then the new testament translation should revert to “elder” to keep things nice and clear. And that’s what we’ve got now in most English translations like the NASB, NIV and so on. Meanwhile, Catholic translations of the Bible tend to keep both the old testament and new testament leaders both called “priests”.

This is simplified and there’s more to it but you get the idea.

End of part 2

This is what I’ve gleaned through several decades as an evangelical, ex-evangelical and theology / classical greek student. I don’t know of a specific book that tackles it like this. Though I can recommend pretty much anything by Bart Ehrman for general bible scholarship.

This is what I’ve picked up through several decades as an evangelical, ex-evangelical and a student. I’ve not come across a specific book that lays it out like this. I’m sure there are though. If not and I write one I’ll let you know!

Edit: I’d recommend anything by Bart Ehrman for an accessible scholarly approach to this kind of stuff (he has a blog and plenty of lectures on YouTube)

Ha!

Worth saying though, even the “biblically accurate angel” meme (funny as it is) is generally wrong. The weird things covered in eyes are not called “angels” in the bible, they’re variously called … (deep breath) … seraphim, cherubim, ophanim, chayot ha kodesh, erelim, or hashmallim. English translations generally call these “heavenly creatures”.

Messengers (“angels”) in the old testament look like regular people too.

So, probably not quite what you meant but I find annoying nonetheless… Bible translation

It’s almost impossible to find an English translation that doesn’t allow tradition to seriously skew how ideas are presented. And I say this as a secular scholar (and someone who recognises that the oldest greek text we have is very very very old). Messing with the translation just leaves it open to criticism unnecessarily.

Here are some examples…

An “angel” in the new testament is not a distinct thing. The word simply means “messenger” and was the mundane, every day, word for messenger. It was the word used if someone came from the next town over to tell you something in person. Without any of our cultural baggage added on top the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary is - on face value - Mary being surprised to encounter a man who told her things. Same for Zechariah (both in Luke 1). It’s only when you get to the shepherds the field that the messenger is accompanied by a heavenly glow. But this idea that they’re perfect beings clad in white with wings is completely absent from the text and, imho, promulgated by the persistent use of the word “angel” when it should simply say “messenger”. (The NT itself goes on to say people have had such messengers as guests in their homes without realising, implication being they often look and sound like regular people. Hebrews 13:2)

Same for “baptism”. This is also a traditional translation of the completely mundane word “immersion”. It’s translated that way to retain the idea of baptism as a distinct church idea. But the text literally says “John the Immerser” not John the Baptist. And he stood in the river Jordan immersing people. Which gives a very plain mundane view of what was happening - he was dunking people in the water as a purification rite - something that already existed in Judaism. The traditional translation is used so that churches can wedge in their own view of what baptism is - say, a delicate sprinkling of water from a font or some such.

Even the word “church” itself. The church in the new testament is never a building. It means “assembly” (of people). So the “church” can meet anywhere, and in fact met in houses or sitting on the ground in the temple courts. Allowing a special Christianised word like “church” to be used instead of the mundane translation “assembly” let’s people think whatever they want to picture church as instead of what the text is directly saying.

While we’re on that, Jesus’ name is actually Joshua (if we want to be consistent) and his mum is Miriam. Names that are far too obviously Jewish and connected to the old testament, so we get a traditional rendering of “Jesus” and “Mary” and so on which makes them all sound a lot more white Anglo Saxon.

In a similar vein “testament” is just a weird translation of “covenant” which itself is just a religious way of rendering the word “pact” or “agreement”. The old testament is a pact between God and the Jewish people made through Moses. When the plain meaning is made clearer then other meanings shine through more clearly, namely, the behaviour standards of the old testament “pact” were exactly that, requirements of a pact between God and the Jews. They were never universal requirements that the Jews were supposed to go out and make the rest of the world follow. This translation choice is used by the modern church to obscure the fact that the old testament moral codes were a distinctly Jewish thing - because the modern church would like to piggy back on Leviticus when it suits its narrative.

Finally, the word “Bible” itself doesn’t appear in the bible. Bible means “library” or collection of writings. It doesn’t appear in the any of the writings because none of the Bible writings are self-aware that they’re going to be compiled into such a collection. The word “scripture” is used (literally “writing”) when Peter’s talking about things Paul’s written but that’s about it. When translated straightforwardly it takes the “holy” shine off things and it’s clearer to see these are people making “writings” to communicate with each other or remember things that have happened. A far cry from the “inerrant word of god” that the church traditionally turned the new testament into.

I could go on, but rant over…

(Edit: to be fair the Greek new testament writes Jesus’ name as “ee-soo-ss” which sounds closer to Jesus than Joshua but at any rate they’re the same name and if old testament Joshua had been around he’d have been called “ee-soo-ss” too. No doubt about Mary though, in the Greek it’s written “Mariam”, that is, “Miriam”, like Moses’ sister)

Edit: Part 2 - https://lemmy.world/comment/12751501

I have never seen so much money spent on something so boring and predictable. Don’t get me started on Avatar 2, that was a 3 hour water simulation that still somehow managed to be naff because of annoying cartoony characters.

My pet (very) silly theory is that both were a cover for military investment in fluid dynamics simulations and they had to hide hours of 3d renders and water simulations in plain sight.

Yes that’s exactly the pattern I’m talking about. The upwards change is only used at the end where it’s used twice. “I just called” is from 1984 though. Through digging around the earliest I’ve found the style is in Penny Lane 1967. Am a bit on the fence about that though as the key shifts a lot through the song, but there’s a definite key change up for emphasis on the last chorus.

Hmm, 1975. I’m sure there are big hits that are earlier. I’m pretty sure the Beatles did it.

Some certainly do. But it also creates a distinct emotional feel which may also be a legitimate intention.