The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Hatunen on 27 Feb 2010 02:31 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:05:48 -0500, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:42:40 -0700, Hatunen ><hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote in ><news:uhqgo59l0v6qg65ti70rilhh7k5h1rnejp(a)4ax.com> in >sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >[...] > >> By recording the activities to show, edited, at a later >> time allows NBC to sick in plenty of commercial breaks >> whenever they like. > >Conscious or unconscious typo? <g> Freud said, .... Oh, never mind. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 27 Feb 2010 02:40 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:04:18 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Adam Funk wrote: > >> The earth's rotation has been slowing down faster than we've been >> evolving. > >Certainly not. That would kind of depend on how fast we've been evolving, whatever that means. I'm not clear on how one makes the comparison, though. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: sjdevnull on 27 Feb 2010 02:46 On Feb 27, 1:28 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > > wrote: > >> In article <7uomssFvk...(a)mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister <robb....(a)bigpond.com> writes: > >> >tony cooper wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:14:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > >> >>> Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded > >> >>> or even wanted a church. > > >> >> I thought he delegated the job to Peter. > > >> >I don't think so. I believe he did ask Peter and the others to > >> >keep on spreading the word, but I have seen no mention of > >> >churches, priests, buildings, vestments or choir boys in the New > >> >Testament. > > >> Try Mt 16:17-18. > > > The closest I see there is the word "build": > > 17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, > > because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who > > is in the heavens. > > 18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I > > will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against > > it; > > (Young's Literal Translation) > > > Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in > > reality it meant "assembly"--the most well-known "ecclesia" prior to > > the writing of Matthew would have been the democratic gatherings of > > Athens, which went under that name. There's no reason to think that > > it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church. > > No, but it's the same word translated as "church" when used by Paul in > his letters, e.g., > > to the church of God that is in Corinth [1 Cor. 1:2] > the one who prophesies builds up the church [1 Cor. 14:19] > our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea > [Rom. 16:1] > just as Christ also does the church [Ephes. 5:29] > > and, as far as I can tell, in the rest of the New Testament. See Acts 19:32-41 for several places that it's translated as "assembly" in the NIV and KJV. As I said elsethread, my above note is overly polemical--I apologize for that. I mainly wanted to raise the question of translation. This is one of those places where word choice is pretty hotly debated in a lot of circles (see, e.g., http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0004.htm "Ecclesia: Church or Assembly?"), so claiming it as an example of what we currently mean by "church" appearing in the original is a matter that's in some dispute. But my use of "mistranslation" goes too far in the other direction. My apologies.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 27 Feb 2010 03:09 "sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com> writes: > On Feb 27, 1:28�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> > Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in >> > reality it meant "assembly"--the most well-known "ecclesia" prior >> > to the writing of Matthew would have been the democratic >> > gatherings of Athens, which went under that name. �There's no >> > reason to think that it meant anything like the organized >> > hierarchy of the modern Church. >> >> No, but it's the same word translated as "church" when used by Paul in >> his letters, e.g., >> >> � � to the church of God that is in Corinth [1 Cor. 1:2] >> � � the one who prophesies builds up the church [1 Cor. 14:19] >> � � our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea >> � � � [Rom. 16:1] >> � � just as Christ also does the church [Ephes. 5:29] >> >> and, as far as I can tell, in the rest of the New Testament. > > See Acts 19:32-41 for several places that it's translated as > "assembly" in the NIV and KJV. So when it refers to a specific group of people gathered together at a specific time, it's an "assembly", and when it refers to an organization, it's a "church". That's no different from the English word "church" sometimes being an organization and sometimes a building. > As I said elsethread, my above note is overly polemical--I apologize > for that. > > I mainly wanted to raise the question of translation. This is one of > those places where word choice is pretty hotly debated in a lot of > circles (see, e.g., http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0004.htm > "Ecclesia: Church or Assembly?"), so claiming it as an example of what > we currently mean by "church" appearing in the original is a matter > that's in some dispute. But clearly the use in Matthew can't really mean "assembly". At least, I can't get any sort of sensible reading for it. > But my use of "mistranslation" goes too far in the other direction. > My apologies. No problem. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its |worst state, an intolerable one. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Prai Jei on 27 Feb 2010 05:58
sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, > Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 > and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 > Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the > Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, > Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, > Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and > Malachi. Are the books called that in the RC bible? I would have expected Ruth to be followed by 1, 2, 3 and 4 Kings (i.e. Samuel and Kings), then 1 and 2 Paralipomenon (i.e. Chronicles) and 1 and 2 Esdras (i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah) before Esther. In Article VI (Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation) of the XXXIX Articles of Religion of the Anglican church, Ezra and Nehemiah are called 1 and 2 Esdras, but the other books are known by their conventional (to us) names. Our position on the Apocrypha follows St. Jerome as given in the Article: "And the other books (as /Hierome/ saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine". The list leads off with 3 and 4 Esdras (what we generally call 1 and 2 Esdras). -- ξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply |