Ehh, Potayto, potahto.

I didn't actually notice the egregious miswording that had happened between Galileo's letter to Lorini's copy to the Consultant's report, but rereading what he had had trouble with, indeed I could find no similar wording whatsoever in Galileo's original text (Or was something sort of along those lines actually written and I missed it?). I think it would be interesting to see the original texts and the original wordings, not that I think it's realistic for the purposes of this class, but in the event that a miswording is said to have happened, it's always important to realize that what we are reading is indeed translated anyway. I don't think necessarily that the translator messed up in translating from, what, Italian(?) to English, but granted there are nuances in other languages that don't translate well.

I actually started, just now, to make a case for how possibly somebody miswrote/misread something, but 1) if you're copying, it's sort of hard to miscopy a whole sentence and 2) the consultant DID put it in quotes and cite the page. I'm not really sure what happened there. Where did the miscopying go wrong? Did Lorini fudge something or is Lorini merely a pawn, given a miscopy of the letter because somebody knew he'd write about it?

My big thing about the letters was that the sun was motionless. Did Galileo ever say that? He said, in regards to the Joshua piece, that the sun's motions (the turning on its own axis) controlled the planets motions and so to stop the sun's motions would have been to stop the planets. Where did this idea that the sun was motionless come up? That was my increasing frustration was that they seemed to completely ignore his attempt to reconcile the Scripture with his findings.

How was it that other than some "poor wording" (which as I've seen was not even his own), the Consultant seemed peachy with it but when it came up later, all these old charges got dredged up again? I suppose this is discussion for class.