Talk:Jacob's tapestry

Back to page

1 Translation
2 Boats?
3 Heiroglyphs
4 "Bloopers"
5 Missing piece
6 Bottom line
7 Rays of Sun
8 The Bible as a source
9 Reconstruction
10 Connections: Jacob's tapestry and the blast door from the Swan
11 Tapestry high res

TranslationEdit

The translation from the tapestry greek might be: «may the gods grant thee all that thy heart desires», a quote from Homer's Odyssey ~~(unconfirmed source)~~ confirmed [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drjackzon (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T05:10:21.

Boats?Edit

It seems to me that "what appear to be geometric designs along the bottom" are actually ancient Egyptian ships/boats. Egyptian riverboat 1422–1411 B.C.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Houssein (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T09:30:42.

Heiroglyphs Edit

We need an interpretation of the heiroglyphics. Mental Knife 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bloopers" Edit

The article currently says that "Ε" is written as xis "Ξ" and "Ζ" is incorrectly written as "Σ". Not so; I think this observation is based on a low-quality image. See DarkUFO's HQ screenshot. In light of this high-res view which does not have the supposed bloopers, I'm going to remove the Bloopers section of the article. --the JoshMeister 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice image. Thanks. Robert K S tell me 18:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This still looks like an actual blooper to me, but only in the scene where the tapestry is being woven. You can clearly see the vertical line of iota in ΘΕΟΙ, so you should also see the vertical line in epsilon, but you can't. This goes for the other epsilons as well. Also it's quite obvious the last letter is a Z, but you can see that it has been corrected to a Σ in the high res picture with Ben in front of the tapestry. And if you look closely at the first and third epsilons, you can clearly see that the end of the middle horisontal line is thicker than right at the vertical line. So it seems the epsilons were once xis. On top of this the lambda in ΟΛΒΙΑ has been corrected from a delta in the second quote. It's clear in the high res picture, but also visible in the others. So I guess the prop guys were'nt all that focused and had to be corrected before shooting the murder scene. Pig Wrestler 22:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. If anyone wants to re-add the Bloopers section (but specify that the blooper only appeared when the tapestry was being woven and was corrected for the later scene) I think that would be fine. --the JoshMeister 18:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing pieceEdit

There is a piece missing in the bottom left of the tapestry as can be seen here: DarkUFO's HQ screenshot. Maybe the one found by Ilana in the Cabin? --Houssein 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the piece she found is definitely that missing corner. Mental Knife 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bottom lineEdit

There is a third Greek line at the bottom. After three HQ images,the text is easily reconstructed:[2][3][4]

ΜΟΝΟΙ ΤΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΕΟΡΑΚΑΣΙ

That is:

μόνοι τὸ τοῦ πολέμου τέλος ἑωράκασι

Translation: '...only they have seen the end of the war'. The subject of the sentence is missing. There is an Σ at the begining, which probably is the ending of it. This is a translation into Ancient Greek of a quote misattributed to Plato: 'Only the dead have seen the end of war'. Wikipedia:Plato#Misattributed The missing part is probably ΟΙ ΘΑΝΟΝΤΕΣ = οἱ θανόντες or ΟΙ ΤΕΘΝΗΚΟΤΕΣ = οἱ τεθνηκότες, both meaning'those who have died'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TarquiniusSuperbus (talk • contribs) 2009-05-20T15:58:26.

Rays of Sun Edit

I could just be creating answers to a question that only seems to intrigue me, but I thought it worth noting that the references to Horus and the sun reminded me of my favorite unanswered question, which is light scatter. When Faraday first started poking around on the island in season 4, one of his observations was that the light seemed to scatter in a seemingly unnatural way. None of the island properties solidified in canon so far would seem to have any impact whatsoever on light scatter. Everything revealed in season 5 relates to time, and the island's clock seems to flow normally enough that it wouldn't affect physics in any easily noticeable way.

I guess I'm really just thinking out loud, but its certainly possible that Faraday's observation and the references to a sun god have something to do with each other. On the other hand, withthe island being removed from the modern and having its "age" in no way comparable to the regular world, a different light scatter could just as easily be a result of a less polluted environment.

--BobbyMC 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bible as a source Edit

Lost uses many Biblical allusions (eg. "God loves you as he loved Jacob." John on flight 316. etc.) Lostpedia also makes several Biblical allusions to characters, especially to Jacob and Benjamin. While you may not all agree to the Bible's validity, most would agree it has historical weight to it. Abraham, grandfather of the Biblical Jacob, was monotheist, according to Genesis. Psalm 20 was quoted and the Jewish exodus were even mentioned in the same section. Stating that Akhenaten was AMONG the first documented monotheists does not mean you have to agree with Scripture. First is still among the first, it just broadens it to include Genesis if you choose to accept that as historical documentation. -JamesyWamesy 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious apologists, not historians, posit that the book of Genesis is a historical record of real persons and events. There is no evidentiary corroboration for such (it is quite to the contrary) and since Lostpedia is not the place for a religious discussion debating merits of Biblical literalism, I'm going to nip this in the bud real quick. While it is acceptable and proper to mention and discuss allusions that reference biblical characters and scenarios, this is not that: it is instead a apologistic argument that ignores the words "historical" and "documentation" in order to further a religious perspective that does not bear critical academic merit. Now, as to the merit of the statement itself (as unmodified), it is dubious, if one is to believe Wikipedia, which states, without citation, "The first monotheist in history seems to be the penultimate Hyksos King of Avaris, named Apophis, who took Sutheck (Set) to be his sole deity, and enforced this god on the population by means of banning worship of all other gods, and allowing the sacred animals of the Egyptians to be killed." I have no problems obviating the language to appease an editor in opposition to it, but subverting the language in a way that makes it untrue, or weakly true, should be unacceptable. Robert K S tell me 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using the word "among". It doesn't make the statement any less true. -JamesyWamesy 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No comments on Apophis and Set? Robert K S tell me 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What about them? I don't know much Egyptian history. -JamesyWamesy 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And not inclined to research, either, I take it? Robert K S tell me 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I'll go look in my extensive Egyptian history library I always keep on my bookshelf... or even better I'll go out and spend a several bucks on such a book because I'd use it so often! I'd really like to say what I'm thinking right now, but I'll refrain so as not to get banned. -JamesyWamesy 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It just seems like if you really cared about getting this right, you'd have appreciated the heads-up and would have wanted to know more. Robert K S tell me 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do want to know, that's why I asked "what about them." There was no reason to be rude about it. -JamesyWamesy 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RobertKS, you state that this is not the place for a discussion on Biblical validity, and yet you devote part of your post to saying why it isn't valid. Granted, I'm sure you have more reason's that you didn't list, but you still debated the other users comments with that info. The Bible is the most historically acurate book we have in the 21st century. Since this is not the place to debate this, I will just leave a book reference in which every citation you need is located (More Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Revised edition, Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, California, 1981). I'm sure you will provide one to the contrary. Anyone wishing to find accurate info may read them, and take from each what they will. Which is the whole point of JamesyWamesy's comments. He/she is simply desiring to adjust the article, not to take away from what the user who wrote the comment believes, but to take away it's degree of fact, without it being certain. They were simply wanting to take away the absolute of the statement and make it more accurate. They weren't trying to push a Biblical agenda. It is my understanding that it is our job as LP user's to get as close to the facts as possible when it comes to these pages we are governing. I admit, that anyone who takes wiki as their sole source for truth needs to expand their research. But that doesn't negate JamesyWamesy's desire to get the facts right here. We spend so much effort debating on whether the bomb actually exploded or not, and whether Juliet is dead or will time travel with the rest of them (if indeed that is what happens). We don't list those as fact because we don't know. Why list this (JamesyWamesy's debate) as fact? NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 17:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. It's much appreciated! -JamesyWamesy 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical validity does not even have to be discussed, or believed, to make an accurate statement here. Borrowing from Wikipedia, "[Abraham] is widely regarded as the patriarch of Jews, Christians, and Muslims and the founder of monotheism." That should be a sufficient statement to cover the point. Biblical allusions in Lost cannot be ignored, regardless of the personal beliefs of the editors or sysops. Take for example the church Eloise was stationed below, the discussion about Thomas, the Virgin Mary statues, Charlie's vision, Eko's church, Rose's faith, and many more examples. Therefore, appropriate mention must be made to cover those points. Smoothing them over, inflating them out of proportion, or denying them completely, due to personal beliefs does no justice to the encyclopedia. The point can be made without overdoing everything; the statement from Wikipedia is an example of such a way. ---- LOSTonthis darnisland 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)