Sunday, October 25, 2015

Pop Quiz on Noah Sunday School Lesson

Sunday School Pop Quiz on Noah...
this isn't Noah Syndergaard, either!    

What do you make of this text?


Order can represent priorities and importance. 

Note the change and comment on what may have caused it.  We are looking for possibilities and will post the top two answers we have found thus far.  

With olde English, like a "second language" we can step back and look at such things as order.  Order is alway important and although there are deeper lessons for analysis (see "Linguistic Archeology..." by Sapir for such), let's consider the order for this lesson. 

Genesis 8:15-18 


And God spake unto Noah, saying,
 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him..."

Now, look at it again, with emphasis:


And God spake unto Noah, saying,
 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him..."

What change in reality is represented in the text where Noah's wife is listed after the sons, in the actual departure, but not in God's command prior to this?

What do you think may have caused this?

Put your thoughts in the comments section.  

123 comments:

foodiefoodnerd said...

The second change I caught was in the final paragraph, with Noah's sons moving up to second string and the wife now demoted to the practice squad.

If each line is from the same Bible version, God spoke the first family order, quoted by the storyteller, and the storyteller moved up the sons as he confirmed Noah's carrying out the directive.

The first change I noticed was, after reading dozens of times order "always" means importance to the subject, this is the first I've found even after many insomiac nights in the archives, that I've read you modify it to "can."

Where are the steaks? Rare to medium rare, please. :^D

Anonymous said...

Did she perhaps resist at first? Maybe god got mad at her.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the order changed after an all night drinking binge in which only his sons could understand.

Sus said...

"God spake" = wife before sons.
Man spoke (I don't know if that's from the original or from a change while writing the King James Version) = sons before wife.

Maybe it's an example of one of the earliest "media" changes of a quote.

Anonymous said...

There are actually 4 verses to compare. Genesis 6:18, Genesis 7:7, Genesis 8:16, and Genesis 8:18.

Two of these verses are God speaking: Genesis 6:18 and Genesis 8:16. The other two are the narrator.

All of the accounts are consistent in order except 8:16. According to Rashi the reason is in 6:18 God prohibited sexual relations aboard the ark. In 8:16 sexual relations were once again permitted.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous,

No, it is intended to stay put with just these verses to compare the change of order.

Having said that, your response is fascinating . Can you recommend for me an all English book from "Rashi" that I might benefit from? No Hebrew.

I am up on some Torah, so it does not have to be "101" but heavy references to Hebrew will be over my head. I would love to read just his works on Genesis account, so...

thank you in advance.

Peter

PS Have you tried Sapir's book on Genesis?

It is brilliant!

Peter Hyatt said...

Even though there are some comical replies...

readers may be on the right track!

Anonymous said...

Here you go Peter

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

It gives the whole bible with Rashi's commentary.

Enjoy!

John mcgowan said...

I must say. This has me stumped. Is it that the "Arc" becomes "Earth"? Earth is repeated x 3 making it sensitive. Although, i don't know if overall, SA in this context "Genesis" makes something repeated (a word) sensitive?

~Scratches head~

Anonymous said...

Readers know this first hand; thus the reason for their life being put in jeopardy by a dear friend that uses this chapter to promote her agenda-saving drunks.

Anonymous said...

I should have added that the link I gave does contain Hebrew, but for the most part it's in English.

As for Sapir's book on Genesis? I'll look into it. Thanks.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Totally kidding here... ;)

Perhaps Mrs. Noah, like a lot of wives as they're heading out the door,remembered something she had forgotten and went to get it. Perhaps Noah in his excitement simply rushed ahead without waiting for her to finish last minute details. These tend to be the typical husband-wife dynamics that I've witnessed and heard about.

Seriously though, interesting topic for discussion! I never caught this before! As order is important and would have been then as well, it seems that God wanted this moment of triumph to be shared by Noah and his wife first. You have to admit it would take a special kind of wife to be cooped up on an ark with tons of animals for a minimum of 375 days (Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 8:13-14). If it was a leap year, an additional 29 days would have been tacked on. Seriously, as if the smells alone wouldn't be something, try preparing 3 meals a day on a tossing, heaving ship for 40+ days while the storm itself raged! Three hundred seventy-five days is a very long time! The order was intended to be an honor, IMO

Did Noah just forget? God appears to tell him right before they disembark. Maybe Mrs. Noah didn't want to immediately stop what she was doing, so he left her and went ahead in order to obey God and Mrs. Noah lost her blessing of seeing with Noah the newly renovated Earth.

It would appear from Genesis 9 that Noah and his sons primary focus upon disembarking was to immediately build an altar and prepare clean animals (as opposed to unclean animals) for a sacrifice. Then God proceeded to establish His covenant with Noah and his sons and their descendants. There's no rebuke for Noah, unlike Pharaoh to Abram (Genesis 18 Abraham mislead Pharoah to think Sarai was his sister, so he wouldn't kill Abram and take Sarai and her maidservants- she was technically his sister in a sense, but definitely his wife). That leads me to think that the issue was Mrs. Noah's.

Skeptical said...

If it is translated into English, perhaps the English tradition of primogeniture was already in practice. Thus the sons would inherit the earth after the ark is safely aground. Also in those times women were considered of less worth than men.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Forgot to add...That's my guess!

Peter Hyatt said...

Thanks to anon for book recommendation.

I'll post top two explanations.

Be logical.

Speculate by using our technique of putting yourself in others' shoes!

Peter Hyatt said...

Fools, you're joking, yes but you're actually on to an important element!

Anonymous said...

Noah and the boys were leading the way, to make sure it was safe for the women to enter the Ark.

elf said...

My guess is that when God was talking to Noah he was acknowledging that his wife is a part of him (Noah) as she was his mate and important to him second (after God of course) and then Noah's son's because chronologically they came next, and then the wives of the sons. Gods words were a reflection of what was important to Noah.
In the order of departure maybe it was a description of who boarded the arc first? Id figure the men would go first to load the animals and the women boarded last as a kind of courtesy to their more gentle nature, with Noah's wife, the mother of the sons boarding before the wives.

Skeptical said...

There is also a noticeable change of order in the 10 Commandments from when God spoke them in Exodus 20: 2-17 and when Moses writes them down in Deuteronomy 5: 6-21.

The Sheep said...

What's Noah's wife's name? I don't think we got a complete social introduction.

Anonymous said...

First is god's invite.
Second is the order they walked on the ark.

Anonymous said...

What was Noah’s wife’s name?

This is what the Bible says about Noah's wife beginning in Genesis 7:7. The Bible does not give her name, however, according to Jewish tradition her name is Naamah - the sister of Tubal-cain, a descendant of Cain, the son of Adam and Eve (see Genesis 4:22). Bibleinfo.com

He was in excess of 600 years old therefore he may have forgotten.

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute! Does this mean Noah was negro? Or, at least his sons?

trustmeigetit said...

New video with mom and dad. Not an interview but them talking about searching again.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/10/deorr-kunz-family-speaks-during-final-2015-search/

Dad still talks the most. Still praises searchers, still name drops yet never drops his sons name once.

Either does mom.

Neither expresses any concern for their son or pleads to someone who may have him.

trustmeigetit said...

Deorrs mom.

First paragraph is about her son missing. Second is about rumors.

To me she seems more upset about the rumors. Also interesting that she says "things that they have said that we have done without evidence"



“I am praying that one day I go to sleep and wake up and it’s just been this nightmare and he’s in his bed and he’s safe and it was just something I had a dream about, not real life,” says Mitchell.



“The horrible, unimaginable things that they have said that we have done without evidence, without even knowing who we are as people or his parents or anything like that, questioning the love that I have for him and that’s kind of been the hardest,” says Mitchell.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting FFON: "Perhaps Mrs. Noah, like a lot of wives as they're heading out the door,remembered something she had forgotten and went to get it."

Anon @ 4:04 pm Oct 25 cites Genesis 6:18 that ark sex was banned.

So, Peter, are you alleging that Mrs. Noah hung back to plead for mercy, negotiate a deal with God?

That bobbing ark crammed to the rafters with animals, creeping crawling creatures and waste; no hot showers; no toothbrushes, deodorant, soap or shampoo; only fish to eat and saltwater to drink?

By day 300, the very thought of crusty, horny Noah making another move would send her overboard directly into a hungry shark's gaping maw!

Seriously, 102 reads later the only change I find still, is the first order is quoting God's voice and the second is the storyteller's own words.

Anonymous said...

I do not think that Peter is angling to make any connotations of dispute from the different wording in the scriptures as quoted.

I've kept out of this doctrinal discrimination dispute because I have very strong feelings about the Word of God in it's entirety; further, I'm happy if any statement analysis can get just one person reading this marvelous book of wisdom without it being torn to shreds by smirches, non believers and doubters.

Having said that; IMO, the last sentence of the post made @3:51 stands correct. I agree. Beyond that, to those posters who don't understand it or even care if they do; I'd be a little careful in making any snide remarks concerning God's holy Word. It is a fearsome thing to trifle with God Almighty. Just don't do it. He can smite you quicker than swatting a fly on the wall, and will. We are not our own; we are HIS, sent here to do HIS will, not our own. Ponder THAT for a while. ABB

Love the picture, btw.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

CHIEF TAKES TO SOCIAL MEDIA TO EXPLAIN PROCEDURE

BARDSTOWN, Ky. (WTVQ) – The Bardstown Chief of Police is taking to Facebook and making a statement about a police officer who was fired after being involved in a missing persons case.

About a month ago, Nick Houck was fired from the police force after telling his brother, Brooks Houck, he was going to be interviewed by police. Brooks is the live-in boyfriend of Crystal Rogers, who has been missing since July.

The chief on Facebook Sunday, not only made a statement, but used the moment to educate the community, calling it, “a quick lesson in criminal procedure 101” after the folks were calling for charges against Nick Houck.

Full statement from the chief:

“Many of you have asked, sent emails, and stopped me on the street to ask why our former officer isn’t charged with a crime. Good question but allow me to teach a quick lesson in Criminal Procedure 101. First, at this point, this is a Missing Person case (legally speaking) being investigated by the NCSO.

A Missing Person case is NOT a criminal case. What our former officer did during the interview was NOT acceptable ONLY because he was an officer. He did NOT give a “heads-up” and prevent his brother from questioning. That is all false rumor stuff. You saw the interview, obviously he stopped nothing. Secondly, a person cannot be charged with a crime when there is not a criminal case, if it becomes a criminal case then perhaps, but under our laws there is nothing at this point. And yes, the NCSO and I have both consulted with prosecutors. Regularly. Our former officer was fired only on administrative charges, not criminal charges.

His actions were not acceptable for that of a police officer.Thirdly, the main focus of my decision was the phone call to his brother during that interview. Was that illegal? No. But a police officer shall not do that, you can call, an attorney could call, most anyone could have made that call but not a police officer. Let me out it in layman terms: YOU could have done what our former officer did and not be charged with a crime either. But because he was a police officer he could not intervene…so those of you who believed that he should have been fired were correct but remember, had he not been a cop, like any of you, there would have been nothing that I could have done. But because he was a cop he lost his career. Let the NCSO continue the investigation with out rumors, innuendos, and false assumptions but most importantly please keep the Ballard family in your prayers for closure. That’s what it is truly all about.”

http://www.wtvq.com/2015/10/25/chief-takes-to-social-media-to-explain-procedure/

KPVI - Jessica said...

OT

Family and friends combed the mountains of the Timber Creek area near Leadore again on Sunday after a two day search looking for two year old DeOrr Kunz that came up missing on July 10th during a family outing up at Timber Creek Campgrounds.

KPVI traveled to Timber Creek on Sunday and spoke with DeOrr’s mom about the search efforts.

“Nothing. We’re still at square one, like we were the day that it happened,” says Jessica Mitchell, DeOrr Kunz’s mother.

KPVI talked to DeOrr Kunz’s mom, Jessica Mitchell while she was out searching for her son on Sunday in the Timber Creek area near Leadore. KPVI asked her what DeOrr was like.

“He is happy go lucky. Always making people laugh. He’s a flirt, so he flirts with any ladies he sees. He’s got the biggest heart, the sweetest, kindest little boy you would ever meet,” says Mitchell.

Mitchell says she has been living a nightmare since DeOrr disappeared back in July.

“I am praying that one day I go to sleep and wake up and it’s just been this nightmare and he’s in his bed and he’s safe and it was just something I had a dream about, not real life,” says Mitchell.

Part of that nightmare has been dealing with not only the loss of her son, but the negative social media along with it.

“The horrible, unimaginable things that they have said that we have done without evidence, without even knowing who we are as people or his parents or anything like that, questioning the love that I have for him and that’s kind of been the hardest,” says Mitchell.

Months after DeOrr Kunz went missing, there are still flyers hanging on the trees up Timber Creek.

“I always keep that hope alive just because we have no idea what happened, but I also try to be realistic, you know, if an animal got him, there is a chance that he is not with us anymore, and I am realistic about it, but I keep that hope alive that I will see him,” says Mitchell.

Part of keeping that hope alive is continuing to search for DeOrr before the snow starts to fall and while the seasons are changing.

“With the colors changing up here, it’s easier to see, you know, like his pajamas, because they were light blue, things like that and you know it’s kind of our last let’s figure out where we haven’t searched and lets search those areas better,” concluded Mitchell.

KPVI spoke briefly to DeOrr’s dad, Vernal Kunz who declined to do an interview because he said he wanted to stay focused on the search.

The search ended Sunday night.

If you have any information on the disappearance of DeOrr Kunz, you are urged to contact the Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office.

Peter Hyatt said...

Quiz

The order of which we speak (and write) is always important. Closeness in proximity can reflect closeness in relationship, just as distancing language is noted, and any change of status.

We do not say, "Well, I do not believe this" because we examine language, in small portions, to discern deception. We allow the author to guide us.

We are given a Divine command for "Noah, his wife, his sons..." etc to depart the Ark.

We are then deliberately told that they did, beginning with "And" with the order changed, with:

Noah, his sons, his wife...

This caused his sons to come between Noah and his wife.

What happened in the months on the Ark that caused distance between Noah and his wife?

Then...once speculated, we can then ask,

"What was the result of the distance between Noah and his wife?" in the narrative.

1. Some think that the months on the Ark had labor in which Noah naturally became closer to his sons as they worked with non-hibrinating animals, as well as other general duties of hygiene, navigation etc. This may have caused distance between Noah and his wife.

2. Some wonder if "cabin fever" got the best of them, as not only was Noah in close quarters with his wife but this could have been something that months of missing friends, as well as fear for the future (quite naturally looking out, day after day, at water) would bring.

For those interested:

Did this distance between Noah and his wife have future ramifications?

Even in humor, some of you showed that you were actively thinking, and asking "what if?" type questions.

Good work!

Peter

Anonymous said...

I didn't say specifically that there was a doctrinal issue or dispute; I only meant that I didn't want to become a part of any dispute because I thought there might become one and that's why I stayed off this particular article. Hells bells, I don't have the answer to everything all the time every time, I just know what I believe to be true; also that since you can't get inside someone else's head or change their mind, you might as well forego any attempts too. That's all.

For all we know, Noah might have had to drag his sons onto the boat by the hair of their head. God told him to get his sons and their wives onto the ark and he did. How can we know that there is distance between NOah and his wife upon coming off the boat? We weren't there and we don't know anyone who was. We are relying on what the 'media' said concerning 'how' they came off the boat? What media? There wasn't any media left afloat, we have only the order as stated (or said to be) by the one retelling the story; who could have been anyone of the eight who were left alive at the time; OR as stated in the retelling by a scriptural prophet years later. All in all, I'd say that God has done a pretty good job at preserving his word and telling it like it is, whether we get it all down pat or not.

BUT, since we all want to speculate about the order, how the boat was boarded and debarked, the smells on the boat, the ill feelings that might have arisen between Noah and his wife and yada yada; MY guess is that by now they were ALL very tired, irritable, ragged, dirty, stinking and needed a long hot shower, a quiet comfy place to lay their weary head and a good stiff drink and didn't give a hoot how they crawled off the boat so long as they did.

I would imagine they also had great sadness as well. They had, after all, lost all of their life-long blaspheming friends and relatives who had refused to believe God's warnings. They had stood around mocking Noah all those years, cursing God, even throwing their drinks against the side of the ark and laughing at Noah as he was preparing it and begging them to listen. Now they are all gone. Drowned.

Actually, I don't care what order they came in off the frick'en boat; at least they did what God told them to do. Nor do I care if Noah actually did tie on a good drunk later on, which he did do. Not my call to make. Have a good day! ABB

Anonymous said...

Peter, along with the seriousness of the climatic situation, you realize that I'm trying to add a little sense of humor to this, I hope.. ABB

elf said...

OT- re: Tragedy Saturday at Oklahoma State University homecoming parade

4 killed, the youngest a 2 year old boy, 47 injured when Adacia Chambers (25 yrs. old) drove her car into crowd.
Quotes from her attorney Tony Coleman --
"I absolutely can rule out alcohol, "
"She doesn't remember a whole lot about what happened. There was a period where I think...she could have even blacked out."
"I have deep concerns about her competency at this point. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but I can tell you she's suffering from mental illness."

These quotes were made at a Sunday press conference in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Ms chambers is being charged with 4 counts of second degree murder. From the point where she hit a policeman's parked motorcycle to the point hee vehicle stopped was approximately 75 feet, according to an officer interviewed yesterday morning on fox news channel. Police are waiting for toxicology reports to determine if Ms Chambers was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs at the time. She is scheduled to appear in court today.

Anonymous said...

I'd be suffering from mental illness too if I'd just killed four people and injured forty seven more with my car gone wild and me behind the wheel. It will be interesting to hear what the breathalyzer tests results are, not so much what her atty says. We know how THAT can go, after all, look how what's-his'-name lawyer got Debbie (does Dallas) off with his twisted lies. Irwin's too. All liars.

tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
foodiefoodnerd said...

Peter, does this apply even though Noah isn't technically the subject (the one being interviewed) in this exercise?

The subject is the storyteller, and he isn't even quoting Noah here; he's telling us in his own words -- it's even clear where he quotes God, and when it's him speaking.

So the order change: if this were a modern day case, would you still be trying to pursue with this subject, what might have happened between the married couple?
Or would you question the subject about possible romantic feelings toward Noah's wife?

And yes, Genesis 6:18 states no sex aboard the ark, but the basis of Christianity is that we're humans who sin.
And wasn't the first rule he ever issued, violated almost immediately when Eve ate the forbidden jelly doughnut, er, I mean apple?

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

KPVI Jessica @ 8:06

At first glance, this seems to be a pretty good statement.

"With the colors changing up here, it’s easier to see, you know, like his pajamas, because they were light blue, things like that and you know it’s kind of our last let’s figure out where we haven’t searched and lets search those areas better,” concluded Mitchell.

"It's easier to see, you know, like his pajamas..."

I have a problem with this sentence only bc it makes me feel, as a viewer, that she knows exactly where he is, and she has seen his pajamas recently against the colors of the present area in Leadore.

I wonder, has she seen these pants while they were searching over the weekend?

Wouldn't the correct version be
"It will be easer to see, you know, like his pajamas because they were light blue."
???

The other thing that bothered me is her
"We have no idea what happened" statement.

Any "no idea" statement is concerning to me, even the one from Issac R.



Just my thoughts only



foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting ABB:
"I'd be a little careful in making any snide remarks concerning God's holy Word. It is a fearsome thing to trifle with God Almighty. Just don't do it. He can smite you quicker than swatting a fly on the wall, and will."
~~

Yes, he effected a mob of ignorant, hate-mongering psychos brutally torturing to death his only child to pay for our sins of adultery, greed, murder, etc.
But humorous, intelligent speculation that brings about your wish of people reading the Bible who might not have otherwise, he angrily squashes like bugs.

Your post at 10:49 this am makes my point perfectly: humorous, well-written, intelligent, and taught me something about religious history. (As well as prompting me to read more Bible)

This above, from your first comment on this thread, is the opposite. The drastic change in language tells me we had the same positive impact on you, despite vastly different interpetations of the Bible.

Everybody wins, thanks to Peter encouraging intelligent discourse.

Peter Hyatt said...

foodiefoodnerd said...
Peter, does this apply even though Noah isn't technically the subject (the one being interviewed) in this exercise?

The subject is the storyteller, and he isn't even quoting Noah here; he's telling us in his own words -- it's even clear where he quotes God, and when it's him speaking.

So the order change: if this were a modern day case, would you still be trying to pursue with this subject, what might have happened between the married couple?
Or would you question the subject about possible romantic feelings toward Noah's wife?

And yes, Genesis 6:18 states no sex aboard the ark, but the basis of Christianity is that we're humans who sin.
And wasn't the first rule he ever issued, violated almost immediately when Eve ate the forbidden jelly doughnut, er, I mean apple?
October 26, 2015 at 2:48 PM

Intelligent question

We are actually analyzing the subject, or author --

The author is reporting truthfully what he knows (how he knows is for a different discussion). I took this example from Sapir's book and asked a number of people what they thought could have caused the author to change the order.

Besides Mr. Sapir's speculation, "cabin fever" (in various ways) was the next top answer.

For Judeo-Christian mindset, the author would be inspired, so the accuracy is trusted.

When Mr. Sapir did was to apply analysis to the entire work, to see if an author's profile emerges. Genesis does not tell us who the author is, with Moses as the one most thought to be.

Mr. Sapir's conclusion is different and his reasoning is stunning. It is brilliant. He looks at social introductions everywhere, and linguistically patterns to match other portions of the Bible.

As an orthodox Jew, his perspective is also fascinating.

It is not an easy read, and is very complex, but it is so rewarding. I am of the opinion that its difficulty is such that even many with formal training will get lost along the way, but for those who take their time, and go very slowly, the reward is worth it.

It has become one of my most treasured works.

Fools, I have had some fun with your posts...thank you.

Peter

foodiefoodnerd said...

Did she explain why he was dressed in pajamas around 2 pm? Especially while camping?

Her creepy husband also babbled about the dogs and horses benefitting from the color changes.

From several interview transcriptions (a kudos and HUGE thank-you to Grace4Ayla, ima.grandma for your time and patient effort!), it seems like they're taking direction on their performance from online posts about their words and actions.

They read of their lack of words to little DeOrr and on the next episode they issue a passionate parental message. Then back to not a word to him or about his well-being.

They speculate they'll find something this weekend; when people talk about determining how long was it there they bagged that plan, too.

Anonymous said...

I think it has to do with the safety of the Arc. Noah's wife gets to go on the Arc with Noah first thing. But when it's time to leave the Arc, the outside is more dangerous. So it makes sense that the men would first head out and see if the coast is clear, so they can look if it is safe for the women to leave the Arc.

ima.grandma said...

Could it be that men and women entered as separate groups and exited as a family unit with the men as priority to spread their seed?

God’s command uses a form that emphasizes the importance of family.  The command was not for Noah to exit the ark, it was a command for his entire family to exit.

I believe it is representative of how their familial relationships were different due to judgement. They ignored their relationships and lived as though they did not have wives, or husbands. Distance is created on the ark to refrain from the task given to man in the beginning 'be fruitful, and multiply.

Juliet said...

I reckon that God intended them to leave the ark in the order given, and they would have done that if, at the last moment, all the women hadn't decided they needed to use the bathroom one last time - the men got all impatient and just went on ahead. That seems logical, to me. :)

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Exactly why was he wearing pajama pants- when my child wears sweatpants or what have you, I call them sweatpants.
Pajama sets for toddlers usually come in a long sleeve or short sleeve night shirt and set of pajama pants.
I call those "pajama pants" - now everyone is different- maybe she calls those pajama pants and has him wear them in the day as well, but idk.
Most people I know don't.

Also - watch Jessica in the first interview on their last "search" where Deorr goes on babbling.

She is doing very strange things with her mouth - looks like she just ate some peanut butter before her interview and can't get it off her teeth haha.

I read where a lot of people were saying drugs, especially meth, can make you do that and itch a lot. Idk.
Maybe John McGowan can take a look.

Deorr seems to be hobbling around on a cane with a knee brace, milking it for the cameras.

I believe it was trustmeIgetit who said about her talking about them not having evidence- this is not the first time I have witnessed her bring that up.

Jessica said something on a Fb post about someone accusing her of murdering the baby- and her first words were something like "Ang, where is your evidence?"

That frightened me.
My first response would never be "Oh yeah? Show me some proof, where's your evidence?"

It would be- "Don't you EVER say I murdered my son! I did NOT murder Deorr!!!

And stranger then that.....

I have some inside info of my own.

I spoke to someone yesterday, who had organized a search for Baby Deorr early on (not backwards guy) and at first had the families blessing.

He met with the family, and got three different stories when he asked what happened. When he questioned them about it they shut down. He organized the search, paid his and his investigators way, and the family refused to show up.

There's more to it, and I am pretty sure he has spoke to LE.
I would be willing to send my proof to Peter so he can validate it.
It was all very strange.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Also I recommend watching the movie "Pay The Ghost" with Nicholas Cage.

ima.grandma said...

Hi foodie. I started re-reading from the top and this statement didn't register the first time I read it. I feel a bit better about my post. Our theme is based on "family". I like your statement better.

Scripture analysis can bring out strong and well-versed individuals. I'm no match and hesitant to risk offending. I'm happy to see everyone is enjoying theirselves. We deserve it. We deal with such serious topics, we need a break from the tension exuded from some thread activities lately.

If each line is from the same Bible version, God spoke the first family order, quoted by the storyteller, and the storyteller moved up the sons as he confirmed Noah's carrying out the directive.

Anonymous said...

No, the order is Noah, sons, wife, wives both getting on and off; it is only in God's directive that the order has wife after Noah.

Juliet said...

I thought maybe someone had an idea to plant a piece of the matching pyjama top up there - because almost certainly the bottoms are gone with DeOrr, but the top might still be around (or even just anything blue and pyjama-like, as LE wouldn't know exactly the fabric of what he went missing in) but then someone helpfully threw out to them the inconvenient fact that the colours would have changed - so that scotched that, though maybe DeOrr was still thinking just a thread might do it, and it might not be so evident in such a tiny find that it was not as faded and weatherworn as it should have been. Also there was a lot of mention of feet, feet on the ground, there was a 'foot' from Jessica (after 'mile' - out of order, as though she was maybe avoiding saying 'foot', but had to, as obviously they could not cover many miles) and there was a 'that boot' too, from Trina. I wondered if there was maybe a hope of a volunteer recovering a boot and a shred of pyjama - but if they had to put that on hold as the expected weathering of the same hadn't been taken into account until the last minute - or somewhere up there is a thread or shred of a blue pyjama top which the volunteers inconveniently did not find. It would look very suspicious if any of the family were to recover anything, after all. Suspicious mind. I feel bad for writing that, but that's what I thought at first listen.

Juliet said...

Anon - the verses only concern leaving the ark, not entering it.

Juliet said...

'That boot' - like as though there is one? Though obviously, if they really believe he is on the mountain (though a lot of people agreed with DeOrr, a lot, that he isn't on the mountain anymore) then they would believe there still was a boot to be found. Sheriff Bowerman has said that every inch has been searched twenty or thirty times at least, and eighteen dogs, scent and cadaver, have been used (he said that during the Webseluths interview).

elf said...

I thought that was just the part where God told them to get on the arc and then they did. I didn't think it had anything to do with Noah and his family
on the arc or leaving the arc. First God said ho forth and tells Noah who to bring and what yo bring and then it said that Noah and his family went forth.

Juliet said...

Elf -it's probably the archaic language which makes it sound that way, but it is about them leaving the ark. Here it is in context - plus there are other versions for comparison.


http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/8.htm

ima.grandma said...

Juliet said...
Anon - the verses only concern leaving the ark, not entering it.

October 26, 2015 at 11:06 PM

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"he's a flirt, so he flirts with any ladies he sees." Grotesque.

He's 2 years old, ffs. That comment makes me feel very uncomfortable. It reminds me of "full toddler lips" from cooper Harris's mum, for some reason. It is so inappropriate. Especially in light of the fact that Rebecca Cox, the Leadore RSO, with a history of offences against children, is a part of this puzzle.

Anyway, he didn't " flirt" with the "ladies who worked at the store". They can't even remember seeing him.

I agree with the posters who said JM did not and has not issued a reliable denial, despite being given ample opportunity. Instead she implies she is shocked; not that people are saying horrible unimaginable things, but that that people are saying those things without evidence and/or without knowing her.

"it’s kind of our last let’s figure out where we haven’t searched and lets search those areas better,” Our LAST?

And how can you search an area "better" when it hasn't been searched at all?

As always, every time DK and JM open their mouths, they give us unintentional information about their guilt. No wonder DK wanted to "stay focussed on the search" and refused to speak. Which begs the question...wasn't the interview about the seach and therefore part of staying focussed?


Anonymous said...

Could we have just one dedicated DeOrr thread to discuss the case? Maybe on the last DK and JM interview thread that currently has 209 comments?

Anonymous said...

Juliet- What Peter quotes is only disembarking, but the order with sons before wife is also present in the verse where they get on the ark, so it's illogical to conclude the order was caused by something that happened while on the ark.

Anonymous said...

Is it because Noah's wife was past child bearing age and so, if the priority was to repopulate the world, was less important?

Juliet said...

Anon at 1.04 - see Peter's comment at 4.44.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter

Re: Oct 26 3:43- I hope that's good! LOL

When you posted this challenge, for some reason I could hear the Mom from a scene in The Goonies movie. Short Summary: The town is getting ready to tear their beloved Astoria sea-side house down to make way for a golf course. The mom's response? She hires a maid because she wants the house to be clean before they tear it down!

It just seems to me that since women tend to have a "nesting" instinct, that maybe Mrs. Noah was kind of saying goodbye to what had been home through a very traumatic experience. Perhaps she was reluctant to leave the ark:
1. It had been "home" for over a year and represented security.
2. She was having difficulty facing the reality that everything and everyone else she'd ever known was gone.
3. She was afraid because they were the only 8 people left on the entire planet- a pretty daunting thought. How would they survive?

Talk about starting from scratch. The only tools/weapons they had were what they brought. Survival would be the name of the game; forget forging a civilization. So, we'd expect to see primitive living (cave-dwelling, stone & wood tools/spears, primitive pottery, animal skin clothing,limited physical stature as nutrition was limited with plant & animal life was recovering). Once immediate survival was ensured, we'd see progression in "civilized skills" (mining, metal-working, bronze, artwork, etc.).

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

OT- The latest DeOrr Kunz-Jessica Mitchell search interview

I, too, was bothered by the blue pajama pant and light blue color [pajama pant] comments the family made. As outdoorsy as their family and extended family seems to be, one would think they'd be well aware that any pajama pants would no longer be: blue or light blue; intact; or easily recognizable/identifiable.

Likewise, the boot comment bothered me for the same reasons with Trina stating "to see the brown in that camouflage boot". Excuse me? It's Fall, there's far more brown now than there was in July and he was wearing a camo jacket then too. Notice no one mentions that. That should be easier to find, according to Trina's standard (way more brown to look for), than a much smaller boot. I find their comments ludicrous, particularly given the fact that trained searchers and LE, as well as Game Wardens, specifically checked known animal dens and usual feeding grounds for clothing and pieces of clothing. Considering LE searched the area 2-3 weeks ago for scat, specifically hoping to find small pieces of clothing/boot or bone (per Sheriff Bowerman),the family's remarks seem very contrived. DeOrr's comment about "I'd be happy with the same color thread of what he was wearing." raises my eyebrows quite a bit...not what I'd expect from a parent whose toddler's been missing since July.

I'm curious that Trina says that they keep searching here because it's Square One. So, they're repeatedly searching the same area that's been repeatedly searched by LE since Day One? Where else are they searching? Where else have they already searched? As much as LE has searched that same area and they themselves have been searching since July (apparently the same area per DeOrr's additional remarks), what makes them so sure there's anything there to find?

Not Statement Analysis I know, but as several other posters have already commented, what is up with Jessica's facial expressions? As someone above stated, she does look like she's trying to get peanut butter off of her teeth (perhaps she had some for lunch though?). For someone who couldn't (IMO, wouldn't) look at the camera or contribute whatsoever to the last interview with a local network, she's willing to speak now. Note the context though is once again to defend herself, themselves against social media rumors/comments regarding their involvement,their reputations "as people", their reputations "as parents".

Jessica: “The horrible, unimaginable things that they have said that we have done without evidence, without even knowing who we are as people or his parents or anything like that, questioning the love that I have for him and that’s kind of been the hardest,” says Mitchell. (http://www.kpvi.com/mostpopular/story/Family-and-Friends-Continue-Search-for-DeOrr-Kunz/Tme5hCaIIkeL1uYt528JMg.cspx)

Her reference to "without evidence" is bothersome,given that there is no evidence of an abduction, animal attack, accidental drowning, or accident. Nor is there a trace of little DeOrr (clothing, DNA, scent trails leading away from the campsite,etc.).

Ranting about social media is a mute point, because like it or not, how you live your life tells us something about you (your values or lack of, your priorities, your character). Your 2 1/2 yr old son has been missing 4 mos., "without a trace", "nothing", and you're regularly on social media flaming people who are looking at the context of your life (especially when you, yourselves have referenced enemies). You and your boyfriend-fiance can't sit down in an interview and detail in order exactly what happened from Thursday night until the Friday afternoon 911 calls, but you can go on camera and talk about the negativity of some people. You can't/won't talk to a reporter in scheduled family interview, but you can talk freely to defend yourself.
Now, I'm ranting on social media. ;)

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Just my opinion, but their own behavior and attitudes since July have turned the public, as a whole, off from helping them search. They should stay off of social media. They should limit their interview comments to the search itself,instead of using it to grandstand as victims...Little DeOrr is the victim here, remember him? There is zero emotional attachment to DeOrr and whatever trauma he may be going through at the hands of a kidnapper. A kidnapper is not a fairy godmother or some Mary Poppins-type. IMO, there's no anxiety because they both know little DeOrr wasn't kidnapped. In previous interviews, as well as this one, the mention of a kidnapper and pleading for DeOrr's return is more of an afterthought. It's almost always their last priority verbally.

ima.grandma said...

This is my opinion only.

How many plans and questions had built up in Noah’s mind during his year’s confinement aboard the Ark? 
It all demanded thought, and plans, and arrangements, and effort, and toil. He needed capable help to rebuild and his sons were his workers critical to rebuilding the new world. 

God intended to bring them out of the ark as couples walking in unity and equality. He was trying to start the planet over with at least a partial redemption of gender equality. Unfortunately, Noah disobeyed the specific instructions.

God desired to restore women, but man’s disobedience got in the way. Not much progression in the restoration of equality had taken place.

For all of its power to effect change, though, there was still one thing the Flood wasn’t able to alter—and that was the fallen nature of humans. For, when they entered the Ark, they did so as sinful human beings and, when they exited it, they were still in the same fallen condition. 

When you start analyzing something as ancient as Noah's family dynamics, you realize that humanity hasn't changed much.

Justice4Deorr said...

A place to discuss Deorr: www.justicefordeorr.blogspot.com

lynda said...

OT

I posted 3 video interview transcripts released from baby Deorrs parents under the blog "Soft Language"

BallBounces said...

First, this is exiting the ark, not entering it.

The first expression is relational -- Noah's wife is his closest relation, so she is mentioned first.

The second expression is descriptive of the order in which they actually exited the ark. Nothing more or less. It suggests the issue of leadership -- the men exit first, perhaps to make sure everything is OK, etc.

The Sheep said...

Noah and his wife are seen as one in the eyes of God and his order acknowledges that. The social order of the time (men lead- God spoke TO Noah, not Noah and wife) is reflected in how they choose to exit.

The Sheep said...

Yes, what BB said!

Juliet said...

Justice for DeOrr - they are nuts over there.

Juliet said...

Oops - I retract that, Justice for DeOrr - I thought it was the Facebook page by the same name you were posting, didn't register the blogspot in the url.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

ima.grandma

I so agree with your last statement! I was thinking the same thing this morning. When God gave Adam & Eve instructions in the Garden, they chose to do things their own way instead and paid for it with their son. Although Noah was counted as righteous (Genesis 6:9),they still had that fallen human nature. The flood and couldn't change their nature, but it did deal with the immediate issue of the overwhelming majority of society being lawless and therefore, dangerous(Genesis 6:5 & 6:11-13). It paralleled Adam & Eve when they left the Garden (the safety & protection of God's presence)and had to face a fallen world,with its diseases,decay,danger,and death.

Just an aside, so feel free to scroll: (not to you ima.grandma)-God is a righteous Judge and we all want Him to be when people like Casey Anthony look like they're getting away with murder. LOL The reality is that it's the people themselves who determine their end with their choices. If God were a smiting God, why would he have gone to the trouble to clothe Adam & Eve before He sent them from the Garden? Why did He banish them form the Garden? He couldn't let them stay and eat from The Tree of Life in their sinful state-they'd be eternally sinful and dying= Unable to be rescued. He have spared Cain when he killed Abel. Likewise, He spared Noah and his family...along with a whole line of people (Sarah, Lot, Rebekah, Jacob, Joseph, David, Moses,etc.). That whole point of the Old Testament is that human beings are imperfect with a sin-inclined nature (we've all done it in one form or another). So, we need someone who can change our very nature...who better than God's own Son?

ima.grandma said...

The Bible does have a deeper meaning in the words it uses and the stories it tells. It's about who we are on the inside; an extraordinary tool to awaken personal discovery.

ima.grandma said...

Thank you fffolly. I'm not versed as you are; I'm not able to quote scripture. Thank you for the evident expertise you posess.

ima.grandma said...

Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to the Bible but I'm going to include something personal that makes me smile.

He was trying to start the planet over with at least a partial redemption of gender equality. Unfortunately, Noah disobeyed the specific instructions.


This reminds me of the tens of hundreds of times over the years my husband will ask me where something is. I always give him very specific instructions where and how to find it. He most always comes back with "I can't find it" then I always go ahead and go find it for him. It's always easier and quicker so I can get back to what I was doing in the first place. Whenever I bring it back to him he always asks "Where'd you find it?" to which I always say "Exactly where I told you it was". He then always sheepishly puts his head down, looks up and with a wink of an eye, says "I know I'm only a man, but I can learn, I can change...if you"ll teach me".

Unless Noah's wife wanted to exit in the order she did, hopefully she gave him the "what's for" later on. When will man ever learn? :)

Anonymous said...

Another question might be - why did Noah go first when God clearly told him to "Go forth". Ark ark.

Juliet said...

Nah, ima.grandma - if God was doing that he would have mentioned Mrs Noah by name. Or one could say, well, maybe he did, but some forgetful guy forgot to write it down. Then again, he just says 'Go forth', not 'go forth, Noah', so you could be right. :)

ima.grandma said...

Anon said Another question might be - why did Noah go first when God clearly told him to "Go forth". Ark ark

Very cute.


Knock knock

Juliet said...


OT - DeOrr

Foolsfeedonfolly - I agree with your observations - what they are saying does sound pretty ludicrous, especially about it being easier to find his camo boot now the leaves have dropped - I can't fathom the logic there. Except perhaps, it is easier to see into the branches of trees. Walk five feet, look round, look up, look down, did Trina say they had been told? Will something be found in a tree perhaps, one day? I think they are possibly becoming paranoid, too - the colour change thing, I wouldn't be surprised if they think someone overheard or hacked a message about the pjs and camo, and how they would/should have faded, that the colours would have changed, sparking this last minute public search. Also, they are now saying they will never stop looking for him - so it seems for sure they know he will not be found alive. But didn't DeOrr tell us as much way back, when another missing toddler was discovered at a campsite, and initially misidentified as little DeOrr? DeOrr said they know as much now as they did on the day he disappeared. (So, kindly tell LE what that is?) The abduction scenario is not believable, and it seems from this latest round of tv /video appearances that they, or one or more of them, were maybe trying to figure a way to get the right person to find the right bit of evidence which would confirm, they hope, in the mind of the public, that DeOrr was taken by a wild animal. They probably have read up on the Lindy Chamberlain case. Hopefully the authorities will triple check that very small area where they put the pumpkins out in tribute, though I suppose that would be too obvious. Still, people get weird when guilt and sentiment take hold - it's sad little DeOrr won't get to see his pumpkins, but hopefully making them will have helped the unknowing amongst them to feel a bit better. I can't imagine the hell they must be going through at the very strange loss of their little boy, nephew, and grandson, regardless of what any of them do or don't know. I'm still not saying any of them killed the baby, or even directly caused his death - just that someone knows what happened, and they are not saying, which if it doesn't make them guilty, also doesn't mean they are all innocent. We still don't know much of how or where Isaac and grandpa really fit in, so that's a lot of missing story.

---

Marson is a psychopath - he does not give a damn, neither does anyone who has already acted as judge and jury -they are a nasty hideous bunch of excuses for human beings, who must be getting off on taunting and abusing the family of a missing child. What kind of people are they, accusing them of murder on the strength of a malfunctioning tape recorder? (Rant caused by delayed reaction to the way they were on Sunday towards Trina - I haven't been over there since. Monsters. It's horribly fascinating in a guilt-inducing, where's the popcorn, can't tear myself away from this horror story, sort of way. Better had but I keep thinking tomorrow's another day.)

Anonymous said...

Imagrandma said - "knock knock"

Who's there?

Juliet said...

Well, how can anyone not feel guilty at what is it - enjoying it? Yes, might as well call a spade a spade. I can't be the only one who gets to feel revulsed at the voyeurism of it all, sometimes.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

ima.grandma

I am no expert by any means! LOL Far, far from it actually. I'm sorry if I have come across that way to you or anyone else. We had just studied Noah in a course last year in Ancient History (and the corresponding world-wide flood legends, written or oral, common to nearly every known culture). I was surprised at Peter's challenge because no one had addressed this particular passage, including the course textbook author. It forced me to go back and read the passages closely, as well as the preceding and following chapters. I'm not that well-versed myself! ;) My teachers years ago kind of drilled it into us to verify sources, report it accurately, and if you're going to take a position- you better be able to defend it. LOL My own take on it is that if I discover that position is wrong, I owe it to the other person to concede. ;) That's one of the reasons I like this blog-I'm always learning something new and posters are pretty gracious when I am wrong.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Thanks so much, for your insight, and for the book recommendation. I like a tough read; it's much easier for my ADD brain to stay focused.

Now I'm curious both who he thinks wrote this section, and when/why their byline got dropped when so many others' survived countless updates and translations.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Excellent points, but sadly it wouldn't be unrealistic to hope his kidnappers were an upgrade to rhis bunch. If they actually existed, which they don't.

foodiefoodnerd said...

One of my favorite intros for the old sitcom The King of Queens is when husband Doug asks his wife, Carrie, where are the scissors.
She goes off, terrifying him, about being sick of being a tour guide in her own kitchen for nine years, and what if she died, and learn where things are, learn, JUST LEARN already!

I'm sure I can find it on YouTube if you haven't seen it; you can play it for ima.grandpa next time he asks something this afternoon. :^D

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting ima.grandma
"God desired to restore women, but man’s disobedience got in the way. Not much progression in the restoration of equality had taken place."
~~~

I've always wondered how that happened as civilization began! With language and communication in earliest stages and societies starting to form, how did the men get organized enough to come to consensus about women being second-class citizens with less rights?

Even if they somehow got all of the women to stay home during the meetings, none came blasting into the next one after their men went home and told them what was happening?
Not enough could build the same level of solidarity?

How did they decide we wore clothing and shoes designed to minimize our agility, self-defense capabilites and escape/running speed, while allowing easy access for rape?

(Then again, the foodnerd in me also always wondered about the first caveperson to figure out that there's something worth wrestling for in an artichoke, or a coconut; the many complex steps to get rice, coffee and chocolate even barely consumable, much less deliciously tasty; using herbs and spices to season meat and veggies, etc. :^D)

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting ima.grandma:
""For all of its power to effect change, though, there was still one thing the Flood wasn’t able to alter—and that was the fallen nature of humans. For, when they entered the Ark, they did so as sinful human beings, and when they exited it, they were still in the same fallen condition."
~~~

Large amounts of water wouldn't blast it away, but the one who put it there originally could, so why did he allow such evil monsters to develop?
That's why I've struggled with atheism all of my life, despite my ultra-Catholic mom.

How can any higher power create or even tolerate people capable of treating others so horribly as many do at every level, from individually, to families, to corporations, up to entire countries?

How can any person claim to follow the teachings of a just and loving God (by any name), and think for a second it's OK to own another human being (slavery here and elsewhere throughout history), or physically mutilate one to ensure a life of excrutiating pain?



Quoting ima.grandma:
"When you start analyzing something as ancient as Noah's family dynamics, you realize that humanity hasn't changed much."
~~~

Wow, what a powerful statement!!
When I was about 7, I had a friend who was in her 80s. I found so fascinating her descriptions of how they all lived so differently, with soooo much less technology. (You know, like today's kids lament about life's archaic tech limits 10 years ago...).

Then she would tell an anecdote about her and friends having fun, school, getting in trouble, arguing over boys, etc., that could so easily take place in 1973, or even 2015.

Same with acts of heroism and of terror. Reading journals written during the Civil War or earlier, if one edits out references to level of technology, leaving only human behavior, observations and relationships, readers likely wouldn't even be able to guess which ones are from which era, much less put them all in chronological order.

ima.grandma said...

Knock knock
Who's there?
Noah
Noah who?
Noah a good place to get out of the rain?..

Knock knock
Who's there?
Noah
Noah who?
Noahbody knows...

Knock knock
Who's there? 
Noah. 
Noah who? 
Noah dont know who you are either.

Knock knock
Who's there?
Noah
Noah who?
Noah fence, but I'm not going to tell you.

 Knock, knock. 
Who's there? 
Noah. 
Noah who? 
I Noah lot more knock-knock jokes...

Knock, knock. 
Who's there? 
Noah. 
Noah who? 
Noah more of these knock-knock jokes, please! 

Knock knock
Who's there?
Noah
Noah who?
If you Noah anymore jokes...please tell me Noah more of them.

ima.grandma said...

I just noticed how many times I used the word always. Suppose ima.grandpa has figured that out too? He's probably been sitting back down in his favorite cushy chair with his feet up, waiting a few minutes and then coming back to me with "I can't find it" all these years. Maybe "man" has learned something after all. :)

ima.grandma said...

Ma (great gma) and Pa (great gpa) used to say:

A deaf old man and a blind old woman are always a happy couple.

They were so wise! I guess that's why we're still together after all these years :) even though he's sometimes a pain in my side, I wouldn't trade him for all the tea in China.

ima.grandma said...

Fffolly and foodie

Though Noah was faithful to God, Noah still possessed the "free will" that God has both blessed and cursed us with.

Peter Hyatt said...

ima.grandma,

Because I enjoy your posts, I pose this question to you. It is not for you to answer here, but to contemplate.

You wrote: ", Noah still possessed the "free will" that God has both blessed and cursed us with."

Could Noah have done something against the will of God? This is worthy of much meditation.

When I was a young man, I was given the following quote and not only meditated on it for years (or 'mused') but researched like crazy:

"If anything in creation has a will free and independent from God, there is no 'god.'"

It impacted me greatly as I looked as fatalism, passivity, and the historical arguments that proceed from it.

It has helped me in life, in ways I am not able to accurately quantify.

For others: this was not a theological issue, nor a translation issue. It was a Statement Analysis issue lifted from the fine work on Linguistic Archeology that you can get from www.lsiscan.com for much learning of analysis.

the change in order was significant and the speculation on what caused it has been interesting. The deeper purpose of posting it is where the fun begins: Take the same principle and apply it elsewhere; elsewhere in the Bible, in statements, in emails, in life, and so on, and ASK QUESTIONS and you will learn its reason. It is very exciting.

Peter

Anonymous said...

"We...will post the top two answers we have found thus far. "

???

ima.grandma said...

I cant describe what's going on in my mind right now. It's like it's the 4th of July and fireworks are going off. I think I'll go sit for a bit till it settles down to sparkler level.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Foodifoodnerd

(Then again, the foodnerd in me also always wondered about the first caveperson to figure out that there's something worth wrestling for in an artichoke, or a coconut; the many complex steps to get rice, coffee and chocolate even barely consumable, much less deliciously tasty; using herbs and spices to season meat and veggies, etc. :^D)


*I am glad I'm not the only one who wonders how they decided what we eat.
Who decided it would be a good idea to eat the first raw oyster/snail/fungi/ unusual plant?
How drunk/stoned were they when they decided to eat the first thing that comes out a bird butt?
Was it a dare or bet to drink what comes out a cow udder?

Did they volunteer or were they volunteered?
Was it a 50/50 sacrifice, if you live yay, you are favored, if you don't? well at least the gods will be happy.
Win win for the tribe either way as they learned what was safe to eat and what wasn't.

Anon said Another question might be - why did Noah go first when God clearly told him to "Go forth". Ark ark

Unfortunately Noah went first and was disqualified.

~Heads to my comfy chair in the naughty corner~

Anonymous said...

What Vicki thinks...


God said to go forth and do this thing and take your family. The narrator said he and his sons went forth to do this thing...build the Ark etc. I think the sons were included after Noah because they were the builders and also women were 2nd class in the days of the narrator.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Nod to Peter-

My spouse suggested that the change in language may have been because Mrs. Noah was having difficulty finding something to wear for the event. LOL! Married humor ;)

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote: "If anything in creation has a will free and independent from God, there is no 'god.'"

I find this hard to reconcile with someone who has made his life's work the detection of deception. (i.e. the deceptive person knows the truth yet CHOOSES to lie.)

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Peter wrote: "If anything in creation has a will free and independent from God, there is no 'god.'"

I find this hard to reconcile with someone who has made his life's work the detection of deception. (i.e. the deceptive person knows the truth yet CHOOSES to lie.)
October 30, 2015 at 4:18 PM

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

If I lacked the ability to employ critical thinking, or if I suspended critical thinking to fit agenda, I, too, would have posted this anonymously.

Peter

foodiefoodnerd said...

Amen, Peter! (pun intended).

My brain has been spinning on that quote at various and all hours since reading it. Every time I think I've formed a coherent response in my head the quote's context flips around in another direction and it's racing my brain down a new road.

Without both critical thinking and empathy --both gifts from God if you're a believer, and among the most important, many would argue -- SA and lie detection would be impossible.
You can't do much successfully related to people without understanding how others think and feel!

Peter made it clear when he posted this quote that it's someone else's words that stuck with him all of this time; he didn't state it as fact or as his opinion.

Even if it summed up his entire life philosophy, how would that reconcile or not with his career in detection deception? That'a comparing apples to pencils.

Peter Hyatt said...

It was a paraphrase from one of the greatest minds American soil has ever produced:

former President of Yale.

Peter Hyatt said...

The ignorance exhibited was as a result of analysis objected to. Its the nature of anonymous posting. It has its good points, and its cowardly points.

Regarding the definition of "God" being omniscient, and omnipotent, the notion that a created being can do violence to the power and control of God is inconsistent.

Yet, we have plenty of verses about the "anger" of God.

Another brilliant mind, though not from American soil, helped me understand this seeming contradiction with two of the simplest words imaginable.

My guess is that someone knows the two words!

Peter

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Peter wrote: "If anything in creation has a will free and independent from God, there is no 'god.'"

I find this hard to reconcile with someone who has made his life's work the detection of deception. (i.e. the deceptive person knows the truth yet CHOOSES to lie.)
October 30, 2015 at 4:18 PM

If I lacked the ability to employ critical thinking, or if I suspended critical thinking to fit agenda, I, too, would have posted this anonymously.

Peter

October 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM

Why so defensive? Why the insults? That you have given so much effort to lie detection, yet believe humans don't have free will, confuses me. There appears to be a contradiction. I have no "agenda".

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

ima.grandma @6:38 Oct. 28

I have to tell you, our family got more than a few laughs from your string of Noah jokes. They were cute, clean, and not the least bit disrespectful. They were good! Thank you!

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't think my "Yale" joke is going to work any better than my Lassie boy joke.

For the record: Princeton.

The famous but not precise quote is from the former President of Princeton.

He had, arguably, one of the greatest minds ever in the States.

Sadly, most people only know him from one sermon.

His immense intellect went into various fields of science as well as philosophy.

anyone?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Peter, that's a bit tricky; I can't be the only one who graduated summa cum laude from both Yale and Princeton!

But it wouldn't be Woodrow Wilson, would it? Or Jonathan Edwards?

PS: The first sentence is easily proven true. Since I didn't attend either school. :^D

foodiefoodnerd said...

I wondered if you were referring to a recent Yale and President, not Yale president, who wasn't known for his iron-sharpened wit but if I was wrong I didn't want to appear disrespectful of your stated right-leaning (not -wing!) politics.

So, how far off am I?

Sus said...

It has to be from Jonathan Edwards. I can't figure out the two words, though.

Unknown said...

I need to know the two words and hope Peter will reveal them soon!

Peter Hyatt said...

Yale was meant as humor as in competition. Having to explain it means how flat it was!

The brilliant mind who said it was Jonathan Edwards. It has meant a great deal to me for many years and helped me grasp more of human nature which in turn sharpens "the expected."

The second is from a man who influenced Edwards.

Regarding the verses about God being "angry" or "grieved", he summed it up with two words that also impacted me decades ago. Translated into plain English:

"Baby talk "



Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Many experts believe that dabbling in lie detection leads most people to conclude

Sus said...

I now know the two words. Blank slate. John Locke.

I'm going to put this in my own words. The reason Jonathon Edwards philosophy of free will has an influence on SA is everything is a new experience. If nothing is preordained, then it is new and should be reacted to as such. It is the same in language. Oh man, I don't know if that made sense.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for explaining, Peter. I still see a contradiction, but I'm always open to, at the very least, trying to understand a different perspective.

Anonymous said...

I somehow missed these posts. . .

foodiefoodnerd said...
<>

I know he was quoting someone else, but it was the part of the post I had wished to comment on. :) But he has also stated this very thing before, in which he gets the point of free-will wrong.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/04/projection-in-statement-analysis.html

He may have been influenced by spanky's awful faces when eating liver but that doesn't take away his ability to try liver. He uses his free-will to not try it. He could also use it to try it. :)

foodiefoodnerd said...
<>

The same as I pointed out in my original post. He teaches regularly that it is the INTENT to deceive that SA is looking for. That's free-will in a nutshell. Yet he doesn't believe we have free-will.

Peter Hyatt said...
<>

No, I was confused on your conflicting beliefs. That is all. :)

Peter Hyatt said...
<>

I agree, it is inconsistent. Which is why I don't believe any such thing.

Peter Hyatt said...
<>

The bible is written for human understanding. God is not human. He has no emotions. :)

Well, look at that! I managed a whole post without name calling or insults! ;)

Anonymous said...

Well, that was strange. It cut out all the the points I was replying too. :(

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting Peter:
"The one thing I have not done with anyone thus far is to share some of what I have learned about human nature that has caused some of the profiling to be so accurate. It seems to be just too much or one does not see how it impacts accuracy. "
~~~~

And once again just when I thought I understood the basics I feel like all of my insight and progress just reset back to zero!
I thought human nature was the basis for SA; how can anyone analyze people for a living without studying and understanding how we think, reason, react, respond?

SA completely absent of human nature makes about as much sense as an illiterate proofreader or an armless neurosurgeon. What exactly are they analyzing and from what knowledge base, barometer, do they draw their conclusions, if not human nature?
(not rhetorical, I really am confused)

foodiefoodnerd said...

This one cut off in transmission; would that be "... to conclude everyone is lying" no matter what?

Not attributing that to you, just trying to complete the thought and that's how most veteran cops start to see the world.

It would have to be frustrating and depressing to have people lying constantly, even when they have no reason to lie, nothing to gain or lose, and face no trouble whatsoever.

With bated breath said...

Foodie @5:06- That's just his way of telling us he has only begun to share his brilliance with us down here in the comments section.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Anon@4:36 pm Oct 31:
Thanks for the link to another excellent read! (my planned book ordering rampage from recent posts must wait 'til pay day).

Quoting him from your link:
"It is similar to the myth of free will: no will is ultimately 'free and independent'..."
~~~~

I don't presume to speak for him, but to me there is a huge difference between free will, and "ultimately free and independent will."
None of us exist in a vacuum, and none of us are totally free from and immune to any and all influence from the rest of mankind.

Even the farthest, most remote, off-the-grid hermits are not fully insulated from a major nuclear attack, or from the forces of nature itself.

That would be free and independent will, in contrast to the free will of choosing after having been introduced to something or even reading about it, since that also is another's influence.

Then again I could be out in left field wondering where everyone went while you all are going for it on fourth and goal at the 5-yardline; that's how learning this feels sometimes.

And thanks for clarifying the quoted text dropped. The first empty quote I thought was a statement, then you were responding to each point so I thought maybe software issue. :^D

foodiefoodnerd said...

Good; I hope it's the start to a lot, with respect to his time, of course.
Maybe that series of articles would be an efficient jumpstart, and give the work the appreciative audience it deserves. :^D

DJ said...

The Weight

I pulled into Nazareth, was feeling 'bout half past dead
I just need some place where I can lay my head
Hey, mister, can you tell me, where a man might find a bed?
He just grinned and shook my hand, "No" was all he said.

Take a load off Fanny, take a load for free
Take a load off Fanny, and you put the load right on me

I picked up my bags, I went looking for a place to hide
When I saw old Carmen and the Devil, walking side by side
I said, "Hey, Carmen, c'mon, let's go downtown"
She said, "I gotta go, but my friend can stick around"

Take a load off Fanny, take a load for free
Take a load off Fanny, and you put the load right on me

Go down, Miss Moses, ain't nothin' you can say
It's just old Luke, and Luke's waiting on the judgment day
Well, Luke, my friend, what about young Annalee
He said, "Do me a favor, son, won't you stay and keep Annalee company"

Take a load off Fanny, take a load for free
Take a load off Fanny, and you put the load right on me

Crazy Chester followed me, and he caught me in the fog
Said, "I will fix your rag, if you'll take Jack, my dog"
I said, "Wait a minute Chester, you know, I'm a peaceful man"
He said, "That's okay, boy, won't you feed him when you can"

Take a load off Fanny, take a load for free
Take a load off Fanny, and you put the load right on me

Catch the cannonball, now to take me down the line
My bag is sinking low, and I do believe it's time
To get back to Miss Fanny, you know she's the only one
Who sent me here, with her regards for everyone

Take a load off Fanny, take a load for free
Take a load off Fanny, and you put the load right on me.

Sus said...

I probably shouldn't be in this conversation. What I remamber is from classes taken a lonnnnng time ago. But here goes.

Johnathon Edwards reasoned that we had free will to a point. REASON is the key word. Through study, through the mind, not just the heart, we find what God wants for us. God wants a certain outcome for us. He tells us through his word, the Bible.

Edwards furthermore made it his life's claim that conversations to Christ were visible. They all claimed the seeing and emoting in similar manners, which he recorded.

Once Peter brought him up, I can see the influence he would have on SA. This blog makes me think.

I'm a Methodist. We sprinkle our heads at birth and go on. :-)

Sus said...

Just think. Auto-correct wasn't even a thing not so long ago.

Remember
Conversions

Anonymous said...

foodiefoodnerd said...
I don't presume to speak for him, but to me there is a huge difference between free will, and "ultimately free and independent will."
None of us exist in a vacuum, and none of us are totally free from and immune to any and all influence from the rest of mankind. . .
______________
The way I see it it's like the whole "nature verses nurture" debate. Neither is completely true on it's own. We have free-will AND we are influenced by our upbringing, culture, invironment, ect. Taking away free-will also takes away responsibilty for our actions.
I'm not sure why my observation upset Peter so much? I didn't deserve his harsh criticisms. I don't know if, maybe, he felt I was saying he's not good at what he does? Which isn't true, he's very good at it. I'm also not sure where he got that I have an agenda?
______________
foodiefoodnerd said...
And thanks for clarifying the quoted text dropped. The first empty quote I thought was a statement, then you were responding to each point so I thought maybe software issue. :^D
______________
Apparently if you put <> at the begining and end of text or it deletes what was there. Opps! LOL
_______________
foodiefoodnerd said...
Anon@4:36 pm Oct 31:
Thanks for the link to another excellent read! (my planned book ordering rampage from recent posts must wait 'til pay day).
____________________
You're welcome. :)

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Even my Mother-In-Law is getting in on the action. See what Peter started!

Her contribution:
Maybe Mrs. Noah was having trouble getting her hair to behave. ;)

Thanks, Peter for the Thanksgiving table topic!