Talk:Gen 9:18-29

Using commentaries

I summarized several pages from Umberto Cassuto's book which I think are very interesting and insightful (his book that is, I'm not patting myself on the back for my inadequate summary!). I'm a little nervous about copyright issues, though I'm summarizing in my own words, with only a few quotations. I'm also concerned about following site policies and objectives. I'd like to continue to add summaries from commentaries like this, so I'd appreciate any thoughts/suggestions about these issues. --RobertC 04:19, 13 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the summary is a copyright issue. I'm not sure about the policies and objectives. Let me give it some thought. What do you think? I enjoyed the summary. thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 05:31, 13 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I tried to write the summary in a way that's consistent with the site policies, and as far as objectives go, I like the idea of this site as an encyclopedic-type resource that gives a brief summary of different takes on a scripture passage with references and links to more information (in addition to the site object to provide original commentary of course). --RobertC 14:53, 13 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Spam filter

Note I couldn't write s*xual immorality because of the spam filter. I've had this problem once before too. What about taking that word of the spam filter list, since it's a fairly common theme in the scriptures? --RobertC 04:26, 13 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if it wouldn't be easier to just say something else instead. I don't like the practice of using immorality to mean s*xual immorality. The best substitute I could think of, procreative immorality, is pretty lame. Before I ask Gabriel (who handles this stuff) to take it off the list can anyone think of a good substitute?

One reason I hesitate is just that s*x is a pretty common them among spam so it is a good word to target. In fact this particular word was added to the spam filter list because of a few days when we received a lot of spam with this word in it. However, it wasn't the only relevant word that was added and it may be that in every post some other word would trip the spam filter alarm even without this particular word in the list. --Matthew Faulconer 05:26, 13 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the way s*xual immorality looks. I'm afraid it gives readers the wrong impression--like we think s*x is such an evil thing we can't even write down the word s*xual without substituting letters--like people do for profanity in cartoons. This is another argument for removing s*x from the spam filter list. --Matthew Faulconer 05:35, 13 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Gabriel fixed this one. You can now write sexual or homosexual in something on the site. --Matthew Faulconer 22:35, 18 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Misc.

Robert, this has turned into a very interesting page. thanks for all the work. --Matthew Faulconer 11:07, 15 Feb 2006 (UTC)

As my grandpa liked to quote, "I have gathered a posie of other men's flowers, and nothing but the thread that binds them is my own" (from the title page of John Bartlett's Familiar Quotations). I think I'm finally done for a while, time to move on to Abraham. --RobertC 00:04, 16 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Saw the nakedness of his father

Eric, I changed the wording you suggested for the following reason: Adherents that believe seeing nakedness is a euphemism also believe that covering Noah's nakedness is also a euphemism. So I don't think v. 23 "stongly suggests" nakedness can't be taken euphemistically. However, I am actually more sympathetic to the literal reading than the euphemistic one and I tried to reflect a bit less emphasis on the euphemistic reading in my rewording. I would support revision that placed even less emphasis on the euphemistic reading (for example, I think it would be better to describe the literal reading first, then explain that others believe this may be a euphemism; but I don't have the time/desire to change this around now). --RobertC 00:03, 16 Feb 2006 (UTC)