Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.Kenny wrote:Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- earendel
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:22 pm
- Location: mired in the bureaucracy
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
But he wasn't writing letters B.C.earendel wrote:Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.Kenny wrote:Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
In the 1st century B.C., this epistle apostle called for God to curse competing preachers
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:37 am
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Was he writing letters at 5 years old?earendel wrote:Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.Kenny wrote:Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Was he writing letters at 5 years old?[/quote]Kenny wrote:Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.
As long as he wasn't drinking liquor and being asked to find a wife when he was only 11 years old.
- Linear Gnome
- One Miner Gal
- Posts: 2007
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 am
- Location: Missouri
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Well, I learned something. I had known that Diego was a way to say James in Spanish (so I got FJ), but I had always assumed that Santiago was a variant of San Diego. I had never realized that Santiago was derived from Iago = Jacob = James, and that Diego derives from Santiago.
I don't have much to add about Cindy, other than that she's my hero. I generally like words, but sometimes they're inadequate.
I don't have much to add about Cindy, other than that she's my hero. I generally like words, but sometimes they're inadequate.
- Vowela
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:07 am
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
That's how I got to Asuncion. Seemed like a pretty logical chain from St. James to Jesus to Ascension to Asuncion. Not knowing where Santiago came from, it seemed like the reasonable choice. Wrong, but reasonable .goatman wrote:No clue how they arrived at Asuncion but two players pulled it must be thinking 'Ascension' of Jesus?
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
The wording of the clue - "refers to" rather than, say, "is synonymous with" - sent me down that path for a few seconds before I thought again (I came up with the Cuban city first). I would think it was a conscious deflection to make the clue a bit more challenging.Vowela wrote:That's how I got to Asuncion. Seemed like a pretty logical chain from St. James to Jesus to Ascension to Asuncion. Not knowing where Santiago came from, it seemed like the reasonable choice. Wrong, but reasonable .goatman wrote:No clue how they arrived at Asuncion but two players pulled it must be thinking 'Ascension' of Jesus?
- Ultraman
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:00 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Just another "way to go, Cindy" and "keep it going" post. Inspiring!
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10327
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Actually, the Ascension of Jesus would be Ascensión (same spelling but with an accent to make it cool). Asunción refers to the Assumption of the Virgin. The Biblical book of Acts tells of the Ascension of Jesus into heaven after his resurrection. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma maintain that Mary was bodily raised into heaven at the end of her life. There's debate on whether she died and was resurrected immediately prior (Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic) or was caught up into heaven without dying (standard Catholic, I think). Either way, the source of the teaching is church tradition rather than the Bible and Protestant Christians do not generally hold to it.Vowela wrote:That's how I got to Asuncion. Seemed like a pretty logical chain from St. James to Jesus to Ascension to Asuncion. Not knowing where Santiago came from, it seemed like the reasonable choice. Wrong, but reasonable .goatman wrote:No clue how they arrived at Asuncion but two players pulled it must be thinking 'Ascension' of Jesus?
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:11 am
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I may have been the only one in America who was not aware of her condition. I was thinking she was "under the weather," not aware that she was in mortal danger. Uh, yeah, that's very different. All props to the lady.hbomb1947 wrote:That would be the case for most people who had more than a few months left and weren't facing continued deterioration of their health in that time.John Boy wrote:hbomb1947 wrote:WTG Cindy! You could tell that she had a low energy level (and reportedly she was suffering from a blood infection during the taping), and for her to be getting in consistently on the buzzer, and to be sharp enough to access her considerable knowledge (she was an A-rundler in Learned League) was especially impressive under the circumstances. To not only appear on J!, but to be a J! champion -- and with a sole solve on FJ, no less -- I am so happy that Cindy was able to achieve this. So now I get to root for her again tomorrow night!
If she was seriously ill, though, it makes her win even more impressive. Kinda like Bob Harris's description of his ToC experience. My NEXT question, though is: if you know you get one and only one chance to be on the show, and the week comes and you are really ill, don't you just figure it's not a good time to be on a show where so much is riding on having sharp mental faculties? Makes me think if that happened to me, I would call and ask to reschedule my taping.
.
- B-Rich
- Newbie
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:56 am
- Location: Metairie, LA
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Just to put (hopefully) an end to the discussion over Sault Ste. Marie and the notion of whether or not there are/were "falls" there.
I think it's an idea of perception and definition. Several have come on and posted that they've been there, and there are no falls there. Now, if you are talking about a large, deep drop off-- as an example, visualize one of the most famous falls, Niagara Falls-- there isn't one there, and there never was. Sault Ste. Marie (literally, in old French "Jumps/rapids of St. Mary ") was originally a series of what most today would call "rapids", but also can correctly be called "falls", as the river falls 21 feet in a short stretch. It is very similar to the old Falls of the Ohio River which were located near Louisville, KY.
Like the Falls of the Ohio, the need for river navigation called for the construction of dams and locks, which almost completely eliminated the natural state of the rapids or falls, which for both rivers used to extend from bank to bank. At Sault Ste. Marie, the center area between the Canadian locks and American locks still has a series of rapids, though with changes in water flow due to the locks, they are a shadow of their original self.
I think it's an idea of perception and definition. Several have come on and posted that they've been there, and there are no falls there. Now, if you are talking about a large, deep drop off-- as an example, visualize one of the most famous falls, Niagara Falls-- there isn't one there, and there never was. Sault Ste. Marie (literally, in old French "Jumps/rapids of St. Mary ") was originally a series of what most today would call "rapids", but also can correctly be called "falls", as the river falls 21 feet in a short stretch. It is very similar to the old Falls of the Ohio River which were located near Louisville, KY.
Like the Falls of the Ohio, the need for river navigation called for the construction of dams and locks, which almost completely eliminated the natural state of the rapids or falls, which for both rivers used to extend from bank to bank. At Sault Ste. Marie, the center area between the Canadian locks and American locks still has a series of rapids, though with changes in water flow due to the locks, they are a shadow of their original self.
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:32 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Interesting -- thanks for that. I suppose the other obvious thing I should've done was check some dictionaries.
Falls:
a precipitous descent of water : waterfall
a cataract or waterfall
I'd never heard the term cataract used in a non-ophthalmological sense before, but
steep rapids in a river
any furious rush or downpour of water; deluge
Having read that and B-Rich's post, I'm satisfied that their word choice wasn't as obscure as I'd initially thought. I do think rapids would have been more clear, but perhaps tying it to the French name was supposed to be a hint.
Falls:
a precipitous descent of water : waterfall
a cataract or waterfall
I'd never heard the term cataract used in a non-ophthalmological sense before, but
steep rapids in a river
any furious rush or downpour of water; deluge
Having read that and B-Rich's post, I'm satisfied that their word choice wasn't as obscure as I'd initially thought. I do think rapids would have been more clear, but perhaps tying it to the French name was supposed to be a hint.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Yeah, that one made no sense. The BC thing is a glaring mistake, but I'm not even sure where they got the notion that Paul called on God to curse other preachers. He certainly wasn't a fan of the "super apostles" as he called them or those who were trying to force Jewish rituals on Gentile believers, but I did a Bible search for the word "curse" and none of Paul's epistles come close to saying that God should "curse" them. He does say at one point that he wishes they'd emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12), which is admittedly harsh, but isn't the same thing.Kenny wrote:Was he writing letters at 5 years old?earendel wrote:Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.Kenny wrote:Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
On a different note, as a person who has been dealing with colorectal cancer myself for 9 years, I was glad to hear that Cindy got this chance. As I watched today (on my DVR), I was sad to see how frail she looked. Cancer sucks, and the treatment can often be as debilitating as the disease. I am glad she won and it's great that she and her family are donating the money to cancer research. My sympathies to her family and friends, though I hope seeing her achieve her goal of getting on the show was a special thing that they'll remember.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Oh, and I totally got the Button Gwinnett question because of Stephen Colbert and Lin-Manuel Miranda! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFeQSBZUSk
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
marethyu wrote:Yeah, that one made no sense. The BC thing is a glaring mistake, but I'm not even sure where they got the notion that Paul called on God to curse other preachers. He certainly wasn't a fan of the "super apostles" as he called them or those who were trying to force Jewish rituals on Gentile believers, but I did a Bible search for the word "curse" and none of Paul's epistles come close to saying that God should "curse" them. He does say at one point that he wishes they'd emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12), which is admittedly harsh, but isn't the same thing.Kenny wrote:Was he writing letters at 5 years old?earendel wrote:Actually it is. Scholars are generally agreed that Saul of Tarsus was born somewhere between 5 BC and AD 5.Kenny wrote:Good catch. I didn't notice it, but the editors definitely should have. That's a major flub. There's no way Paul could have lived "before Christ."snowdenscold wrote:Anyone else noticed they said "1st Century B.C." on the Apostle Paul question? It should have been 1st Century A.D.
I would have rang in for Paul based on "epistle apostle", but the date caused serious hesitation.
Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
- goatman
- Man Who Stares At Goats!
- Posts: 1430
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:43 pm
- Location: Calvert, Maryland
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Cataract typically implies a kind of stepping-stone or serial cascade, which is yet another fine riparian tributary term! Don't take me littorally!bbird wrote:Interesting -- thanks for that. I suppose the other obvious thing I should've done was check some dictionaries.
Falls:
a precipitous descent of water : waterfall
a cataract or waterfall
I'd never heard the term cataract used in a non-ophthalmological sense before, but
steep rapids in a river
any furious rush or downpour of water; deluge
Having read that and B-Rich's post, I'm satisfied that their word choice wasn't as obscure as I'd initially thought. I do think rapids would have been more clear, but perhaps tying it to the French name was supposed to be a hint.
The corridors of my mind are plastered with 3M Post-It notes!
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:53 pm
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Good find! I didn't think to look for variations on the word curse. It still raises the question of why they said BC, but he clearly was calling on them to be cursed.Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:46 am
Re: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I commented on this in my post on page 3marethyu wrote:Good find! I didn't think to look for variations on the word curse. It still raises the question of why they said BC, but he clearly was calling on them to be cursed.Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
My issue is with the choice of the word 'competing'. I think it gives the wrong impression to someone just reading the clue without any background/context.snowdenscold wrote:Also, I thought the phrase "called for god to curse competing preachers" (emphasis mine) was a bit misleading. I assume it's a reference to Galatians 1. You can technically justify the way the phrased it, but I would have worded it differently. Anyway, not as bad as the "B.C." part obviously.