Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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

June 16[edit]

Finding School Histories[edit]

I am trying to find the date that Washington School in Waterford, WI originally opened. ANy history about the school would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.155.229 (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get a response here (and this is a very specific query), try calling the school and asking them. Most schools are proud of their history, and will have at least one person keeping some form of archive about it. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Divinity[edit]

Reading a book about archaeoastronomy, I found some reference to a japanese god called Hitokotunusi but I can't find informations about him anywhere. Even Google seem to ignore it. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks as though someone took some liberty with transliteration. I could only find one reference: A German book titled "Raetselhafte Phenomaene" (mysterious phenomena). If this deity does exist, I assume the name would usually be transliterated quite differently. Wait for someone who speaks Japanese to come by here or try contacting one of these users [[1]]. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention (or plausible basis for a mis-spelling or similar) found in my available references, which include extracts from the creation myth in the Nihongi. For interest, what's your archaoastronomy book's Author and Title? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the usual "Hepburn" transliteration of modern Japanese, t before u becomes "tsu" and s before i becomes "shi". AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about Japanese gods, but it's probably Hitokotonushi (ja:一言主, Google search). "Si" is a variant romanization of "shi" as AnonMoos mentioned, but "tu" for "to" is just a misspelling. -- BenRG (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph's decree[edit]

In page 89 it says that Joseph decreed a reform 1786 "... that obliged government officials to explain legislation in the language of the various peoples of the monarchy." I have not found any information on this decree. Could someone give me the the source?174.3.103.39 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, who reigned from 1765 to 1790. Our article mentions that he issued 6,000 laws and 11,000 decrees, but unfortunately there aren't any sub-articles that I see that go into significant detail. This book page and the few pages before it are probably of interest; they discuss his effort to reduce the 4 languages that decrees were posted in, down to just German. Tempshill (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were Adam and Eve the first humans?[edit]

Copied from the help desk. So Why 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been debating this question for quite sometime; were Adam and Eve the first creation of mankind? On June 16,2009 I spent hours on the phone arguing on the behalf of this issue. The peron that I was discussing this with was a female minister, a friend of a brother of mine. First she started with Genesis 1:26 which states; Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,according to Our likeness;let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the , over all all the earth and every creeping thing that creeps on earth.

Now this next portion is what I do not understand. Genesis 1:27; So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. This verse I believe is talking about some other humans I believe because Adam was not created according to Genesis 1. Genesis 2:7 tells us that man was formed from the dust of the ground. It appears to me by these verses in Genesis that there was humans before the creation of Adam and Eve. This was what the discussion was all bout during that phone conversation. Also I was told that Adam and Eve was created to begin the lineage of Christ. Please help me figure this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.235.164 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man was not created he evolved see Human evolution article.Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we're restricting ourselves to the Judeo-Christian creation account (and let's please do, that's obviously the thrust of the question), there are two creation stories at the top of Genesis. This fact is the subject of much theological debate. You may want to start at creation according to Genesis. — Lomn 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on this: Internal consistency and the Bible#Old Testament describes the contradiction of Genesis 1 and 2 in the historical context. Regards So Why 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that Adam and Eve were the first created humans ever, but after their son Cain kills Abel, Cain goes off to another land and marries/reproduces . . . what answer you choose to see in that discrepancy is up to you! I'm not sure I understand the relevance of knowing one way or the other. Maedin\^talk 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find this article helpful: Preadamite. It deals with how the dillema you mention has been seen through history. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic biblical scholars wrangle over those passages. There do appear to be two accounts of the creation of man, and there are various explanations for this given. One of the most common (sorry, I have no citation right now) is that Adam was initially created hermaphrodite, before being revised at the time of the creation of woman into male only. This is backed up by the text, where it says that he (singular) was created "man and woman". There's also a Midrashic story that Adam's original wife was Lillith. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cain married a girl in the next valley whose people had evolved from earlier primates. Coincidentally, she was the first to have evolved far enough to be considered human. Edison (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bible school teacher once told me the only answer they could figure out to where Cain's wife came from, was that he married one of his sisters that the Bible hadn't bothered to document. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to consider if or why Adam, Eve, and presumably God had bellybuttons, considering that they hadnt ever been gestated or born. A point Ernest Gellner interestingly alludes to in his article about the origins of nations, "Do Nations Have Navels?". Willy turner (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humans evolved so there was no single person that was the first human. Bubba73 (talk), 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time, not too long ago, when it was common for humans to easily believe two logically contradictory statements. It is still common when it benefits human laziness, stupidity, etc... When Genesis was recorded as a written document, after many generations of being an oral tradition, it was common for humans (even very intelligent humans) to believe two creation stories that contradicted one another. There was no reason to try and find a way to make one work with the other. Now, we have a need to have one "true" story, so there is a lot of work to undo the stories and rationalize a way to make one work with the other. -- kainaw ™ 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a comment on my talk page... I am not stating that the two stories in Genesis (which the questioner references) absolutely must be incompatible with one another. I am stating that when they were written it was not necessary that they be compatible. Contradiction was acceptable. Now, contradiction is not acceptable. However, changing the Bible is only acceptable on a very minor scale - such as translating what the original text is most likely to mean instead of what it literally means. So, we are placing a current restriction on a book written when the restriction did not exist. That will certainly cause a problem. -- kainaw ™ 19:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that what's written above is just plain rubbish. It falls into a trap of believing that earlier people were not just differently-informed, but actually stupid. There is no reason to believe this. Many individuals from earlier times were much more intelligent than you or I. Doubting that is just self-centred thinking.

The idea that contradiction was somehow acceptable then and not now is just ridiculous. Even today if you read two history books about the same events you can find they appear to contradict each other quite frequently. It's about describing the events from a different point of view, and we have no reason to think that ancient people regarded that any differently from us. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ignore Lomn's plea to restrict myself to the Judeo-Christian creation account because there is no Judeo-Christian creation account. What do you do when a book presents one completely fabricated creation story on one page, then flatly contradicts it on the very next? There's no reason to decide that one story is the creation account and not the other.

Unfortunately, the Bible contradicts itself on many other issues: Is God merciful or is he vengeful? Does he have a body or does he not? Who could Cain possibly have married if the only woman alive was his mother? On all of these issues, the Bible cannot be said to be advancing an opinion because it advances two mutually incompatible ones at the same time.

It is the job of authors to ensure their books are understandable, and not the job of readers to sort out obvious logical errors. Dweller cites somebody who claims Adam was a hermaphrodite, but if you're willing to believe that, you should have no problem believing the author made both creation stories up. It's also possible that Adam and Eve were two of the millions of people who existed back then; the Bible simply doesn't say it. It's also possible that the two creation stories happened in different universes. The author of Genesis is no longer alive, so we cannot find out what he really meant; we can only guess, but without evidence, none of the guesses are more valid than the others.

If the above seems like a pointless rant, my point is this: the question is not answerable because the only thing the reference desk can give the OP is speculation, not solid, factual evidence regarding the author's intended meaning. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"..So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them..." and "...one small step for (a) man....". God created mankind, male and female "them" plural. This could have been any number, or indeed any great number. The story about Adam is the specifics about one particular one, who is significant in becoming the one involved with the serpent and the apple. Painting the broad picture first, then moving to specifics, is quite an acceptable way to convey a story, and need carry no contradictions. - KoolerStill (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgate Sources of Alexander the Great[edit]

I know that Diodorus & Curtius Rufus are part of the "Vulgate Tradition", but are any other sources? I'm also trying to find some advantages of the material of these sources, but so far can only find negatives. Some help would be much appreciated :)

There are a huge number of Alexander romances, although I don't know if they are part of the "vulgate tradition" per se. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Canada over 50[edit]

Would someone kindly point me to a place where I can find out how many people who are still in the workforce in Canada are over 50 years of age? Thanks. // BL \\ (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can find is this, which says 15.3% were over 55 in 2006. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might already have tried this, but I thought I'd mention Statistics Canada ("by subject", left column) Jørgen (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was trying to avoid the Stats Canada site as it gives me a headache, but it does seem the logical place. I have been able to extrapolate closely enough to satisfy the need I had for the information. Appreciate your help. // BL \\ (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible sales[edit]

Who gets the money from Bible sales --Thanks, Hadseys 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you the buyer give money to, and whoever else gets some of that money passed on to them. This will include the seller, distributor, publisher, printer and maybe (depending on the edition) the translator, editor or annotator. Algebraist 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ye but who holds the copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.184.222 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which Bible you are referring to. There are many (MANY) versions of the Bible - each with a different copyright. -- kainaw ™ 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little bit of information in copyright on religious works. Algebraist 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant bit here is: "The original text of ancient books, such as the Bible, Rig Veda, etc. predate any copyright laws. However, translations of that text may be recent enough to fall under copyright law, and commentary or cross-notes added to the text may be copyrighted. Of course that copyright will belong to the person, persons, or organization that translated or added material to the text, not God (or any particular god or gods)." (Note that in the case of the King James Bible even though the text is too old for the Berne Convention it is under Crown Copyright in the UK.) --173.66.250.169 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might like to poke into Billy Graham's organization's finances. There is a long-standing question about how clean that organization is or was. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What does Billy Graham have to do with the OP's question?10draftsdeep (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even heard it suggested that Billy Graham, or any of his organizations, were involved with selling Bibles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, they made a tremendous amount of money, enough to fund the rest of the organization, by giving away bibles. Somethings smells. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the copyright holds until 70 years after the death of the author (God), who is not dead. --80.58.205.37 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Nitzsche...Livewireo (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the courts have declared that they're really not in the business of trying to decide whether or not a text is or is not the product of divine revelation (this came up in the lawsuit over the copyright of the Urantia Book...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic Communities in Female Prisons in the US[edit]

How many Therapeutic Communities are there in female prisons, in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.217.62 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the quarterly peer-reviewed international journal (www.therapeuticcommunities.org/)? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]