Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 11 11

[sfcityduck]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:08 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I know that. As an astrology sign, it's made up. That's the joke.

I got it. I was riffing on your joke.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/16/2024 at 8:06 AM, VintageComics said:

This is a great side tangent that can illustrate how one poorly chosen word can affect the outcome of an entire discussion perpetually, and how that poorly chosen word can create a world of conflict and disagreement.

The dinosaur discussion in regards to the biblical narrative always causes a stir, mainly because I believe parts of the Bible has been mistranslated for centuries due to intellectual dishonesty. I believe it's a case where translators put their beliefs before the facts and interpreted, rather than translated passages not than letting the facts speak for themselves. 

People lead with a belief rather than form it by allowing the words to speak for themselves. 

 

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew originally, and it was translated out of Hebrew into all common languages.

1st verse of Genesis, as popularly translated and commonly accepted reads like this: 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Note the use of the word "the" (see bold in verse 1) leads everyone reading to believe that this was THE actual beginning, with no previous existence making the creation story about 7000 years old chronologically, and removing any ability for there to be a fossil record. 

But a more correct translation, even though not well recognized, is that the verse should read like this:

1 In a beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Just correcting the worth "the" to "a" completely changes the meaning of the entire opening passage, and by extension, changes the entire biblical record, meaning that there WAS a previous existence, and that it was buried under water.

For biblical enthusiasts, they'll also note that this correction ALSO starts to align with later passages which talk about a 1st, 2nd and 3rd earth and heaven, a previous possible flood referenced in the time of Noah, etc. It completely changes EVERYTHING. 

But for this discussion, it also completely opens the existence for a fossil record before the Genesis 1 creation story, removing 'conflicts' with science and aligning the two. 

Did someone just make this up? Is there a precedent that supports the use of the word "a" rather than "the"?

There actually is. 

2000 years ago, Hebrew was almost a lost language in the Middle East. Because the Koine (ancient) Greek was the prominent language of the world due to the conquests of Alexander The Great, the situation was so dire that at the time Hebrew became a near lost language and lost to history. Because of this, the scholars of the time committed to translating the ancient Hebrew texts to Greek, using prominent Greek and Hebrew scholars of the time so the old texts could be understood by the average person because they no longer spoke Hebrew.

They chose 70 scholars to perform that translation and the translation came to be known as famously as "The Septuagint" or "The Seventy". 

How did the Septuagint translate the 1st first of the bible?

They chose to use the word "a" rather than "the", as I pointed out. 

You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions. 

It's why proper, logic and reason are so important in any historical discussion. Words matter. Meanings matter. Context matters.

While I get your point, I am pretty sure that Mike has made it very clear he doesn't want anyone veering to religion as some people are very sensitive on that subject. Talking about the history of the Bible is very interesting, but the chances of offending someone are very high given that there are so many different versions of the Bible and who made what selections necessarily becomes a sensitive topic.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:03 PM, sfcityduck said:

While I get your point, I am pretty sure that Mike has made it very clear he doesn't want anyone veering to religion as some people are very sensitive on that subject. Talking about the history of the Bible is very interesting, but the chances of offending someone are very high given that there are so many different versions of the Bible and who made what selections necessarily becomes a sensitive topic.

I agree. There are many more suitable places than a comic book forum for Biblical exegesis.

The religiously minded have been pummelling each other since 18.00 GMT on October 23rd 4004 BC, and we in this thread have only just started, so let us sideline this topic.

And, as a parting shot, those dinosaurs which were too big to fit onto Noah's Ark became extinct.

Edited October 16 by Albert Tatlock
add 1 line

[sfcityduck]

On 10/16/2024 at 9:23 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

I agree. There are many more suitable places than a comic book forum for Biblical exegesis.

The religiously minded have been pummelling each other since 18.00 GMT on October 23rd 4004 BC, and we in this thread have only just started, so let us sideline this topic.

And, as a parting shot, those dinosaurs which were too big to fit onto Noah's Ark became extinct.

Good Omens is one of my favorite tv shows. I wasn't as fond of the book because I am much more a Terry Pratchett fan than a Neal Gaiman fan. But Neal's scripts for the two mini-series have been absolutely brilliant stuff starting from minute one - which I believe you just referenced (presumably from memory) - which included the notation that the Earth was created on October 21, 4004 BC at 9:17 am - no idea the timezone. (Let the argument begin!  Just kidding)

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:43 PM, sfcityduck said:

the notation that the Earth was created on October 21, 4004 BC at 9:17 am - no idea the timezone. (Let the argument begin!  Just kidding)

This idea was Usshered in back in 1750, when timekeeping was not as refined as today's.

However, Superman, the Spectre, the Flash, Rip Hunter and many others have ventured even further into the recesses of the past.

Edited October 16 by Albert Tatlock
scan added.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:14 PM, COI said:

For someone concerned with logical arguments, you sure do like your astrology.

How do you feel about crystals? 

[COI]

On 10/16/2024 at 11:06 AM, VintageComics said:

 

People lead with a belief rather than form it by allowing the words to speak for themselves. 

 

 

You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions. 

It's why proper, logic and reason are so important in any historical discussion. Words matter. Meanings matter. Context matters.

Yes, people do start with belief and work backwards, such as starting with the presupposition that the bible constitutes proof of anything.

I have no problem with people believing anything they want, and you know I have no problem with you Roy, but you're brow-beating everyone about proper logic while not employing it yourself. Biblical debates are not the place to employ formal logic.

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:24 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

The kid on the right cannot bear to watch.

I think the adult had just found the barn loft stash. Dang. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Mmehdy]

Here is my conclusions after reading "Stan Lee lies" and the other 50 years of counter programing BS.

Stan had control of the Letters page and his soapbox etc...

Back in 1962...this had an enormous impact on the early comic book collecting field. Heck, there were other fans of Marvel comics like us..... But the letter pages were part comedy and part very informative. This was a critical step of success in carrying Marvel forward.. as well as the monthly title list...that really tied it together for collectors to do a watch out on the newsstand/supermarket/drug store  I have to give credit where credit is deserved...it probably was Stan's baby although he probably had a bunch of help and heck maybe he wrote a letter or two. But to say he wrote every story early on.is just an amazing fantasy.....for stan's benefit.

It is clear Stan did not create Spider-Man...it was Joe, Jack, Steve and then maybe Stan putting it together. The same with Thor and the Hulk etc.

Board members to keep defending the undefendable is just not right.....the truth has come out....please accept it ! Read the book...it is in black and white!!!!

Stan Lee as the titles say: Lied" upon Lies upon lies to the point of absurdity...we were in the dark for so many years and of course, the story was a great sell to the public for commercial gain. But as true comic book collectors, we are held to a higher standing knowledge-wise...we should have known better. There are no more excuses, Stan Lee deserves a * at best for the creation of the marvel universe. The real deal will be uncovered in 2024. for some of us on the board, it will take time to sink in...accept it, and I understand that

 The Mount Rushmore of the Marvel Universe is Jack, Steve, John R or John B.........for 2024 now.

Edited October 16 by Mmehdy

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 3:26 PM, Mmehdy said:

Here is my conclusions after reading "Stan Lee lies" and the other 50 years of counter programing BS.

Stan had control of the Letters page and his soapbox etc...

Back in 1962...this had an enormous impact on the early comic book collecting field. Heck, there were other fans of Marvel comics like us..... But the letter pages were part comedy and part very informative. This was a critical step of success in carrying Marvel forward.. as well as the monthly title list...that really tied it together for collectors to do a watch out on the newsstand/supermarket/drug store  I have to give credit where credit is deserved...it probably was Stan's baby although he probably had a bunch of help and heck maybe he wrote a letter or two. But to say he wrote every story early on.is just an amazing fantasy.....for stan's benefit.

It is clear Stan did not create Spider-Man...it was Joe, Jack, Steve and then maybe Stan putting it together. The same with Thor and the Hulk etc.

Board members to keep defending the undefendable is just not right.....the truth has come out....please accept it ! Read the book...it is in black and white!!!!

Stan Lee as the titles say: Lied" upon Lies upon lies to the point of absurdity...we were in the dark for so many years and of course, the story was a great sell to the public for commercial gain. But as true comic book collectors, we are held to a higher standing knowledge-wise...we should have known better. There are no more excuses, Stan Lee deserves a * at best for the creation of the marvel universe. The real deal will be uncovered in 2024. for some of us on the board, it will take time to sink in...accept it, and I understand that

 The Mount Rushmore of the Marvel Universe is Jack, Steve, John R or John B.........for 2024 now.

We're forgetting to credit Stan for the dialogue, ALL of the dialogue, at least until his promotion and Roy Thomas was brought on in the later 60's to absorb some of the day-to-day burdens. I realize your Rushmore is artists only, but quite a few of us actually read the words. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 16 by jimjum12

[fast eddie]

On 10/16/2024 at 8:01 AM, jimjum12 said:

A little more than 5 years prior to 1962, folks were burning comics in church parking lots. Bringing back superheroes was bringing back customers, and a radio interview, saying basically, "check us out, we're back, and behaving.", is entirely possible. Since Stan unquestionably spent a LOT of time promoting Marvel, it had to start somewhere. GOD BLESS ...

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

Jeesh,, and 10 years later they were burning The Beatles albums,,,,,,, buncha crazy pyros!

[JollyComics]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:07 PM, sfcityduck said:

Nah. Dinosaurs are real.

The dinosaurs survived and thrived for 165 million years much far longer than roughly 300,000 years of modern humans so far have roamed the planet.

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 6:07 PM, JollyComics said:

The dinosaurs survived and thrived for 165 million years much far longer than roughly 300,000 years of modern humans so far have roamed the planet.

That's because they didn't waste time over-thinking things, like we do. GOD BLESS ...

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited Thursday at 05:49 PM by jimjum12

[JollyComics]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:19 PM, jimjum12 said:

That's because they didn't waste time over thinking things, like we do. GOD BLESS ...

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

You forgot to add something they were less impactable.  They didn't destruct Earth, but we do!!!

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 6:23 PM, JollyComics said:

You forgot to add something they were less impactable.  They didn't destruct Earth, but we do!!!

...and they were cooler looking. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Sauce Dog]

On 10/16/2024 at 11:06 AM, VintageComics said:

This is a great side tangent that can illustrate how one poorly chosen word can affect the outcome of an entire discussion perpetually, and how that poorly chosen word can create a world of conflict and disagreement.

The dinosaur discussion in regards to the biblical narrative always causes a stir, mainly because I believe parts of the Bible has been mistranslated for centuries due to intellectual dishonesty. I believe it's a case where translators put their beliefs before the facts and interpreted, rather than translated passages not than letting the facts speak for themselves. 

People lead with a belief rather than form it by allowing the words to speak for themselves. 

 

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew originally, and it was translated out of Hebrew into all common languages.

1st verse of Genesis, as popularly translated and commonly accepted reads like this: 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Note the use of the word "the" (see bold in verse 1) leads everyone reading to believe that this was THE actual beginning, with no previous existence making the creation story about 7000 years old chronologically, and removing any ability for there to be a fossil record. 

But a more correct translation, even though not well recognized, is that the verse should read like this:

1 In a beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Just correcting the worth "the" to "a" completely changes the meaning of the entire opening passage, and by extension, changes the entire biblical record, meaning that there WAS a previous existence, and that it was buried under water.

For biblical enthusiasts, they'll also note that this correction ALSO starts to align with later passages which talk about a 1st, 2nd and 3rd earth and heaven, a previous possible flood referenced in the time of Noah, etc. It completely changes EVERYTHING. 

But for this discussion, it also completely opens the existence for a fossil record before the Genesis 1 creation story, removing 'conflicts' with science and aligning the two. 

Did someone just make this up? Is there a precedent that supports the use of the word "a" rather than "the"?

There actually is. 

2000 years ago, Hebrew was almost a lost language in the Middle East. Because the Koine (ancient) Greek was the prominent language of the world due to the conquests of Alexander The Great, the situation was so dire that at the time Hebrew became a near lost language and lost to history. Because of this, the scholars of the time committed to translating the ancient Hebrew texts to Greek, using prominent Greek and Hebrew scholars of the time so the old texts could be understood by the average person because they no longer spoke Hebrew.

They chose 70 scholars to perform that translation and the translation came to be known as famously as "The Septuagint" or "The Seventy". 

How did the Septuagint translate the 1st first of the bible?

They chose to use the word "a" rather than "the", as I pointed out. 

You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions. 

It's why proper, logic and reason are so important in any historical discussion. Words matter. Meanings matter. Context matters.

Technically yes, but I'll nit-pick that based on the modern academic census (and actual Hebrew temporal clauses) it is actually better interpreted as "In the beginning OF god creating the heavens and the earth". I would not go as far to say this 'aligns' it with science, rather it simply defeats the dogmatic concept of creation ex nihilo ;)

*runs back into the shadows* YOU WON'T GET ANYMORE FROM ME ON THE SUBJECT! *cackles*

Edited October 16 by Sauce Dog

[sfcityduck]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:26 PM, Mmehdy said:

 

It is clear Stan did not create Spider-Man...it was Joe, Jack, Steve and then maybe Stan putting it together.

That's not clear at all. It's definitely not clear to Steve Ditko and Joe Simon (or Stan Lee but I know you don't trust what he says, so let's focus on Steve and Joe).

Steve says Spider-Man was created by him and Stan. Ditko also says the idea that Jack worked on wasn't the Spider-Man idea that got published in AF 15. In Ditko's mind, it os just like Jack saying he created Thor, when Thor was an already created character. At a minimum, Ditko believes that he and Stan created the version of Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15 (the only truly fully created Spider-Man), including the costume, powers, webshooters, etc. Just like the Thor in JIM 83 was a new creation (a re-creation) despite Thor already being an extant character in comics and books because he had new unique attributes. Finally, in Ditko's view, Kirby's Spider-Man idea was an unworkable idea that was a "failure." All of this is in Ditko's written articles quoted up thread.

[Corrected Edit] Ditko also says that he and Lee created the Hulk that became popular in TTA after the Hulk that appeared in Hulk 1-6 failed. Again, Ditko views the "re-created" Hulk to be a new creation just like Hulk was a new version of Frankenstein. This reasoning jives with what Kirby said in interviews: "Hulk is Frankenstein." 

Joe Simon denies that the ideas he and Kirby worked on constituted creating Spider-Man. He does claim to have come up with the name "Spiderman," but basically says "so what?" Joe took Kirby to task for claiming S&K created Spider-Man. He said in an interview that Kirby told him (Joe) that he (Kirby) made the claim because he was concerned about money. 

All of the above is preserved in Ditko's published writings and interviews of Jack and Joe. 

 

Edited October 17 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:44 AM, COI said:

Yes, people do start with belief and work backwards, such as starting with the presupposition that the bible constitutes proof of anything.

I have no problem with people believing anything they want, and you know I have no problem with you Roy, but you're brow-beating everyone about proper logic while not employing it yourself. Biblical debates are not the place to employ formal logic.

+1000

[Iconic1s]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:06 AM, VintageComics said:

This is a great side tangent that can illustrate how one poorly chosen word can affect the outcome of an entire discussion perpetually, and how that poorly chosen word can create a world of conflict and disagreement.

The dinosaur discussion in regards to the biblical narrative always causes a stir, mainly because I believe parts of the Bible has been mistranslated for centuries due to intellectual dishonesty. I believe it's a case where translators put their beliefs before the facts and interpreted, rather than translated passages not than letting the facts speak for themselves. 

People lead with a belief rather than form it by allowing the words to speak for themselves. 

 

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew originally, and it was translated out of Hebrew into all common languages.

1st verse of Genesis, as popularly translated and commonly accepted reads like this: 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Note the use of the word "the" (see bold in verse 1) leads everyone reading to believe that this was THE actual beginning, with no previous existence making the creation story about 7000 years old chronologically, and removing any ability for there to be a fossil record. 

But a more correct translation, even though not well recognized, is that the verse should read like this:

1 In a beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Just correcting the worth "the" to "a" completely changes the meaning of the entire opening passage, and by extension, changes the entire biblical record, meaning that there WAS a previous existence, and that it was buried under water.

For biblical enthusiasts, they'll also note that this correction ALSO starts to align with later passages which talk about a 1st, 2nd and 3rd earth and heaven, a previous possible flood referenced in the time of Noah, etc. It completely changes EVERYTHING. 

But for this discussion, it also completely opens the existence for a fossil record before the Genesis 1 creation story, removing 'conflicts' with science and aligning the two. 

Did someone just make this up? Is there a precedent that supports the use of the word "a" rather than "the"?

There actually is. 

2000 years ago, Hebrew was almost a lost language in the Middle East. Because the Koine (ancient) Greek was the prominent language of the world due to the conquests of Alexander The Great, the situation was so dire that at the time Hebrew became a near lost language and lost to history. Because of this, the scholars of the time committed to translating the ancient Hebrew texts to Greek, using prominent Greek and Hebrew scholars of the time so the old texts could be understood by the average person because they no longer spoke Hebrew.

They chose 70 scholars to perform that translation and the translation came to be known as famously as "The Septuagint" or "The Seventy". 

How did the Septuagint translate the 1st first of the bible?

They chose to use the word "a" rather than "the", as I pointed out. 

You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions. 

It's why proper, logic and reason are so important in any historical discussion. Words matter. Meanings matter. Context matters.

Is what you are trying to say is…

In “The” beginning of the Marvel Universe ”A” Stan Lee Lied.

Got it! 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 10/16/2024 at 4:34 PM, sfcityduck said:

That's not clear at all. It's definitely not clear to Steve Ditko and Joe Simon (or Stan Lee but I know you don't trust what he says, so let's focus on Steve and Joe).

Steve says Spider-Man was created by him and Stan. Ditko also says the idea that Jack worked on wasn't the Spider-Man idea that got published in AF 15. In Ditko's mind, it just like Jack saying he created Thor, when Thor was an already created character. At a minimum, Ditko believes that he and Stan created the version of Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15 (the only truly fully created Spider-Man), including the costume, powers, webshooters, etc. Just like the Thor in JIM 83 was a new creation despite Thor already being an extant character in comics and books because he had new unique attributes. Finally, in Ditko's view, Kirby's Spider-Man idea was an unworkable idea that was a "failure." All of this is in Ditko's written articles quoted up thread.

Kirby also says that he and Kirby created the Hulk that became popular in TTA after the Hulk that appeared in Hulk 1-6 failed. Again, Ditko view the "re-created" Hulk to be a new version just like Hulk was a new version of Frankenstein. This reasoning jives with what Kirby said in interviews: "Hulk is Frankenstein." 

Joe Simon denies that the ideas he and Kirby worked on constituted creating Spider-Man. He does claim to have come up with the name "Spiderman," but basically says "so what?" Joe took Kirby to task for claiming S&K created Spider-Man. He said in an interview that Kirby told him (Joe) that he (Kirby) made the claim because he was concerned about money. 

All of the above is preserved in Ditko's published writings and interviews of Jack and Joe. 

 

All of the things Ditko, Kirby or anyone else said acknowledging Lee's input were wrong.  All the things they said bad about Lee are right.