Skip to main content

oh lord

a friend sent me this hilarious image, which illustrates why english is really a bullshit language:


ok, all languages evolve, and you really don't have to go back that far with most of them before you don't know what they're talking about, but really, if it weren't for the fact that the above languages were spoken in the same territories, would you say they were the same? [smarter people than you say they are -ed.]

but, as i look at the picture, a dark cloud descends upon me. aside from the change in language, it seems that god himself has undergone a pretty significant change. 

i'm not versed in old english, but i am reasonably well-versed in the others, and it seems that the middle english and king james version are pretty close to one another. the middle english christian was nourished by the waters, whereas, by the seventeenth century, god was just leading people to them and, presumably, going to collect some more. 

but in the middle and king james versions, it's clear that god makes people to lie down in the splendour of the green pastures. in the modern version, he lets them do so. no longer is relaxation and contemplation the purpose of human life. by 1989, those things are privileges. 

furthermore, the middle and king james versions both indicate that christians shall not want for anything- that's what god has promised them. that was a load of hooey even at the time, because plenty of people were in want of even basic things, but it holds out the promise that it's god's plan that they should not want for anything. [note: that doesn't mean that they would have everything that they wanted, only that they would not be "in want", i.e., of those things that were necessary.] 

in the modern version, that is altered so that it is a statement of present fact: i lack nothing. it no longer matters what god's plan is. the person who says the prayer in modern language is saying that they are fine the way they are, which is ridiculous, since there are millions of christians in varying states of deprivation. 

i'm not in touch with god, at least not unless i skip my medication for a few days [and even then, it's dicey], but perhaps someone who is could enlighten us all as to how come he's snuck these lousy changes to the agreement in. because in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it almost looks like the people translating/ transcribing the bible altered it to reflect the shift in morality that occurred in the industrial revolution, where those in power insisted that people should be happy with what they were given, no matter how little it was, and should consider themselves lucky not to have less. 

personally, i think that god might want to have a word with his admin staff. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…

making faces :: bette davis lips

the inscription on bette davis' grave reads "she did it the hard way", which should tell you something about the kind of life she led. indeed, she was known as a fighter, taking on studio executives at a time when that simply wasn't done, unless you "never wanted to work in this town again". even when she lost a legal battle against warner brothers that forced her to see out her contract, she was able to parlay her return to the screen into better roles that secured her legacy as one of the greatest icons of the screen. she was the first woman ever to garner ten nominations for best actress at the academy awards and the first woman ever to be president of the academy of motion picture arts and sciences [the people who give out the awards].

that bette davis ever became a movie star, let alone one of the biggest movie stars in the world, is kind of remarkable. after all, she wasn't conventionally beautiful, although her face was certainly unforgettable. …

making faces :: eyes without a face

these are indeed strange times, my friends. no one living has ever seen anything like this because there has never been anything close to the current set of circumstances in the modern world. sure, people will make the comparison with the spanish flu epidemic of 1918-20 but the fact is that things were very different then and those differences are not limited to the technology we now have available. that has an effect, of course, but consider the other factors: the world had just been through the most destructive war in its history. aside from the fact that millions had died, millions returned home injured in body and mind and there was little in the way of a social safety net to protect any of them. in many countries, "peace" was hardly peaceful because the political fallout of the great war plunged many nations into civil wars. so in that way, we're in a better position now because we don't have an entire generation of people walking around who are already severel…