Uh oh, now they have to dispose of it in the judaically approved way, which I think involves a burial ceremony.
Does this affect the hoary old debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
There is something that rankles for me when the Tanakh is referred to as the Jewish Bible. The original is not an alternate version of the later appropriation by another group.
You have a point, but how many people would know what you’re talking about?
Well exactly! Everyone knows what the Bible is, because that’s the real book. The Jewish book must be some sort of knock-off, right?
In any case, the differences are now tiny.
I believe that is called an “analogy.” They are fun and tricky and a mark of intelligence. Hofstadter wrote a great book about them. Maybe two.
Did you not understand my post? I don’t understand yours.
Are you implying that anybody who isn’t well-versed in the details of rabbinic scholarship is an ignorant boor? Because that leaves out an awful lot of people.
What do you mean?
The Tanakh came first. The Bible came after. But the majority wins, so the original book is renamed the Jewish Bible. It’s just one of those personal pet peeves that rankles. As I said.
Does bible count as a genericized word these days? No longer granted any legal protection, like hoover, or sellotape?
It has always been. It basically means “book”. That’s about as generic as it gets.
Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendage) have a canonical text that I can inscribe on a grain of Parmesan?
Of course it does.
Not having vowels saves a LOT of room!
It’s a cute PR stunt, not really very impressive in terms of modern miniaturization technology, and I’ve seen people do much more impressive stuff with a FIB specifically. (eg growing a nanowire and then taking a lateral cross-section of it and mounting it to use a TEM to look at all of its atomz.)
I’m not really sure what you’re upset about.
The term “Bible” really just means “The Book,” although it usually has some connotation of holiness or canon. Of course in the Christian world it means Old + New Testaments, but even then there are variations on what writings it specifically refers to (the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Bibles are all different). So saying “Hebrew Bible” is specifying a particular kind of bible. I’ve always found it a pretty neutral term, particularly compared to terms like “Old Testament” (implying obsolescence). And AFAIK it’s the most widely used English term to refer to what we Jews call the Tanakh.
And it’s not like Tanakh is the OG way of referring to those particular 24 books. It’s just a clever acronym that’s become popular in recent centuries for its brevity and specificity. But there are other terms (like Mikra) that predate it. And I’m not sure why the English speaking world should be required to adopt a Hebrew acronym that can be hard to pronounce, when there’s a simple and descriptive English term like “Hebrew Bible” available.
Next you’re going to tell me that Chinese people should transliterate “tomato” into Chinese instead of using terms like fanqie (barbaric eggplant) or xihongshi (western red
thing persimmon) to refer to it.
(edited to fix xihongshi per @Nagurski’s comment)
Good luck finding a torah yad small enough for this thing.