Liquid Plummer is a caustic liquid =) photo processing chemicals and battery acid are more caustic, but in my situation more caustic means harder to bring along.
Something I've been thinking about lately. Who is to say that the person who wrote/copied the original manuscript didn't write/copy it incorrectly on purpose to fit with their own personal agenda at the time, not realizing that their mistake would still be there 2,000 years later? I mean seriously, it's possible.
In my e-mail earlier today I mentioned books by F. F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, and Lee Strobel (the latter worth reading mostly because he interviews the other two). Eric has talked about the preservation of the Old Testament, and quite rightly. I'll talk about the New Testament.
First, it was not a manuscript at the beginning; it was twenty-seven manuscripts (New Testament), spread from Rome to Jerusalem at least, and so different people made multiple copies of those originals and sent them to each other all over the world, spreading from Spain to Egypt. They were also translated very early into several different languages--Coptic, Syriac, Latin, Italian, some others, by different people in different places.
We know that there are mistakes in some of the copies, and that translators sometimes had to compromise to get the sense in another language. We also know that sometimes a copyist changed something he thought was wrong, or attempted to clarify something. We know that notes in margins got included into the text. We even know that once in a while someone tried to add or change something in the text to support his opinion.
The thing is, because we have copies from all over the world, and copies of copies running back into the very early centuries, we can see that this mistake only exists in copies from Egypt, and this change was made in Rome but not in Constantinople or Alexandria, and with careful study of the many different copies we have (which really are incredibly similar with rather rare variations between them) we can get very close to certainty on the original text. We wind up with questions like whether there was or wasn't a definite article, or a relative pronoun, or whether it was this preposition for "in" or that preposition for "into".
Besides, several of the authors wrote more than one book sent to more than one destination. Look at Paul. He sent Romans to central Italy (and maybe also to western Turkey), the two Corinthian epistles to southern Greece, Galatians to western Turkey, Ephesians to the west coast of Turkey (and probably several other destinations), Philippians to northern Greece, Colossians to central Turkey, Thessalonians to northern Greece, and the personal letters to Timothy to two different locations, Titus to an island in the Mediterranean, and Philemon to Colossae. So if someone wanted to change what Paul wrote, he could at best tamper with two letters--and having done so, he would then have made them inconsistent with the other eleven. The tampering would be evident, not only to us but to the people at the time, who thought those letters were important and who were protecting their content from a very early date.
No one who is informed on the subject thinks that the versions we have are significantly altered from the originals.
I've heard people say that Jesus didn't really exist at all and was in fact completely metaphorical.
You can actually make a better case historically that George Washington never existed. The historic evidence for the existence of Jesus is that compelling. In fact, famed twentieth century publishing magnate and author J. Gresham Machen said that the resurrection of Jesus was the best attested fact in history prior to the seventeenth century. It is more likely that Jesus rose from the grave than that Columbus sailed to America, in terms of the historic proofs.
That don't mean squat Eric. So you're telling me that if the king waved a bag of gold in the scribe's face (Or waved a sword in his face) the scribe couldn't be persuaded to fix it the way the king wanted?
John, I'm sure that someone could have paid off one scribe to make a change in one copy of the Old Testament. By the time anyone was in a position to have done that, there were already thousands of copies spread over thousands of miles.
It would be as if you came to my house and asked me to make a change in my copy of the Greek New Testament, and having watched me do it thought that you'd changed what Christians believe. No one was ever in a position to change enough documents to make a difference.
BTW, how can somebody be a levite and not a Jew?
Technically, Nikolaj, "Jew" means "descendant of Judah". "Levite" means "descendant of Levi", who was Judah's (next older) brother. Moses was a Levite, not a Jew. All of them were "Hebrews", which means "descendant of Eber", who we find in Genesis 11 was a few generations ancestral to Abraham. "Israelite" means "descendant of Israel" or Jacob, and thus covers all of them.
At the same time, there is a secondary use of "Jew", because when God took the kingdom from Rehoboam and gave it to Jeroboam, Rehoboam who like David was a Jew kept Judah, along with the smaller tribe of Benjamin, and many from the other tribes including the descendants of Levi fled the northern kingdom which then was called "Israel" or sometimes "Ephraim" for the largest tribe in that group. Those who fled from Jeroboam merged into the southern kingdom and were thereafter known as "Jews" because they were part of the political unit that was "Judah", although many (like Paul of the tribe of Benjamin) retained their individual tribal identities.
Incidentally, the Jews still keep track of the Levites and particularly the Aaronic priests: if your name is Cohen, you are a patriarchal descendant of Abraham, authorized to pronounce the Aaronic benediction/blessing at synagogue services.
--M. J. Young
Aha, so Jew does not equal Israelite. Got it. Thanks. That same mistake also gets in the commentary my character wrote.
You can actually make a better case historically that George Washington never existed. The historic evidence for the existence of Jesus is that compelling. In fact, famed twentieth century publishing magnate and author J. Gresham Machen said that the resurrection of Jesus was the best attested fact in history prior to the seventeenth century. It is more likely that Jesus rose from the grave than that Columbus sailed to America, in terms of the historic proofs.
Then why don't we learn about Him in history class?
He did not really make out part of big political issues of history at that time. Later on Christianity became a force to be reckoned with as suddenly an emperor an (more specifically his wife) embraced the faith and enforced it on those in their kingdom. But that was Europe.
At least I think this is part of the reason. Mark might correct me though.
The point I'm trying to make though is that if there really is all of this irrefutable historical evidence, there shouldn't be a single Atheist anywhere in the world.
Like how there wouldn't be people believing the holocaust never happened?
Seperation of church and state applies specifically and has broadened in scope. We did learn about Jesus in my history books, but they were extremely vague on purpose and only said that He was born, He was a religious teacher, and a religion called Christianity was formed about the circumstances of His death after He was crucified (and that many people follow this religion today).
*corners Nikolaj like a fiend trying to get some crack* When are you going to start running games?
I'd like to but have some buts.
1) No time
2) Allergic to paperwork
3) No Rulebook
Every time I try to run a game on a light system, like Risus of FATE, I find out that I highly underestimate the amount of time that crawls into world building and crafting adventures in that world.
So that makes me your perfect player. I have a lot of time, and paperwork and rules are less important to me than an interesting story.
On the other hand, then there's also the last part of what you said, and in spite of being an easy player in many ways, sometimes I do derail scenarios....
edit: But I do love Multiverser and you seem to have a lot of inspiration for running games. If nothing else it might help you get a stronger handle on mechanics.
yeah, maybe, but besides that there's two jobs, four biblestudies (of which I run one), reading up to start an own business and actually being the kind of person that needs some sleep.
If you help me with mechanics I could try to launch you in Small World. I can't promise that it will last and that I will be posting a lot. I have not decided yet. My two jobs require me to prepare stuff at home and already I'm so easily distracted by reading this site.
The other thing is that I love cultures so much that I will never be satisfied enough to run it.
Hmm, I have one other idea, but I'm not sure about it. What if you ask again next saturday? I'll see what I can do then.
John,John, John, haven't I explained to you how very little the role of reason is in how people think? Mostly, people believe what they want to believe, what they're trained to believe, and what they're forced to believe. Reason and logic has very little to do with the human mind.
Ok Niko, I'll ask you a week from today. ;)
haven't I explained to you how very little the role of reason is in how people think?
So true. Or people believe they're right just because.
btw, it's not the existence of Jesus that is doubted. Almost all atheists believe that. It's the resurrection and claim of Godhood that causes the conflicts.
Hahaha... athiests. I was an athiest once. It's like saying "I was a complete fool once." Then I started thinking about the world in a logical sense and reached the conclusion that something exists outside of everything we know that had to have set time in motion. Thus, my athiestic belief went up in smoke.
I'm not an Atheist, I'm just not a Christian.
"Dear God, please protect me from your followers."
Bumper sticker I saw.
Agnostics are much harder to convert than athiests. Once you've decided that the argument is over and that there isn't enough information to make a decision, it becomes very frustrating for someone to try to tell you that the earth rotates the sun, or gravity makes the apple fall.
I'm not agnostic either. I firmly believe in God. I just don't proclaim any religion.
I'm similar to you, John, and I call it non-denominational Christianity with a firm personal relationship with God. Of course, the similarity probably ends when we start talking specifics.
As far as I understand it John will only believe in a God that will not hold him accountable for his actions and makes him feel good. He is allowed that, he chooses.
I am agnostic as well.
As far as I understand it John will only believe in a God that will not hold him accountable for his actions and makes him feel good. He is allowed that, he chooses.
Atheist: "How do you know God is real?"
Christian: "The Bible says so."
Atheist: "How do you know the Bible is real?"
Christian: "The Bible says so."
Atheist: "The Koran says Allah is the true god."
Christian: "Why are you believing that false religion?"
Atheist: "How do you know it's a false religion?"
Christian: "The Bible says so."
I've actually heard arguments like this take place. I'm not agnostic. So-called "Christians" drove me away from Christianity.
I came to Christianity on my own spiritual path and I found its teachings and principles and the power of prayer through Jesus to be true for me. I don't pay much attention to the words of men whether on paper or straight from the source, and since I had to find a personal God through an intense spiritual journey, I would advocate anyone doing the same thing. So, I don't as much try to convince people that I'm right as talk about why they could be wrong.
Atheist: "How do you know God is real?"
Christian: "He lives in me."
And Allah is just the Arabic word for God ;)
Let's quit this. I told you you are entitled to your belief, there is nothing for you to contest unless you try to convince me of your belief and it's 'rightness'. You would be undermining everything you said if you did though.
I don't think I'm right. I don't think anyone is, really.
John,
Just cause many people are irrational does not mean reason should not be striven for. Most Americans are also out of shape, but that it no excuse not to take a walk or a run in the morning. Also there are other evidences than just reason.
One of the six counter-arguements to the Cosmological Arguement is the one I call the False Modesty arguement. 'Its all just too hard and too complicated for us to figure out'. The Cosmological Arguement can be understood by a reasonably bright third grader. Many things of God are indeed way beyond us, but his eternal glory and godhead are not. They are plainly seen.
Your statement seems something like a variety of this.
Once we get to the point which we're all at, that we agree God exists and that He is knowable to some important degree, then we can begin to examine the claims of Jesus and the evidence for his deeds and see if they hold up to a fair-minded judgment.
It's a random thread. Here's one for you. My friend Wendy is about 5 foot 3 and has never weighed even 100 pounds in her entire life. I am 6 foot 2, and weigh almost 300 pounds. What I'm saying is that there's no way on God's green earth that she could possibly beat me at arm wrestling. I'd give Wendy 1@1 strength, and myself 1@5. If she rolled a 10, and I rolled a 16, she just beat me at arm wrestling, a feat she couldn't accomplish if she used both hands. How is that possible, or even remotely realistic?
She has a slightly higher chance to fail than you do. If it made you feel as if it was more realistic, you could try for best three out of five.
Personally, I don't believe that arm wrestling is really about strength. I think it's more about technique. That could just be because I've lost to people I knew were weaker than me, and the relative success die rolls haven't usually gone in my favor.
edit: But how would you suggest it be done, John?
second edit: I don't think you're as below average in strength as you claim to be if you can beat her every time; and there does come a point where you can look at the attribute scores and judge, "That person will not win in this case," in my opinion.
edit: But how would you suggest it be done, John?
I don't know, it was just something I thought was interesting.
second edit: I don't think you're as below average in strength as you claim to be if you can beat her every time
I thought 1@5 WAS average for an adult male.
I would say 1@6 is closer to average. 1@1, 2, 3, 4, 5, that's 5, 1@6, 7, 8, 9, 10, that's five. And still, I would probably put you in at @7 or even @8, particularly if there's as much difference between the two of you as all that.
particularly if there's as much difference between the two of you as all that.
It's not that I'm strong, it's that Wendy is so tiny. I can wrap my thumb and middle finger around both of her wrists and hold both of her hands together with 2 fingers. No matter how hard she tries, she can't pull them apart. I'd almost give her 0@10 strength, if that wasn't sub-human. She's never weighed even 100 pounds, and she's 34 years old. She looks like a 10 year old.
Arm wrestling is a ridiculous example and is only used for storyline color.
Let's use the example that a guy is trying to push you off a cliff. He has a 1@10 strength, yours is 1@6. I'm running the game, and I announce that due to the difference in strength, I'm not even going to roll for it, he pushes you over the edge and you splatter on the rocks below. You're dead.
Was that fair?
Was that fair?
Not really. To be clear, I'm not arguing, just trying to learn.
Two
(Laughing) To my knowledge, I had never seen Final Countdown prior to doing the analysis. I had to bend over backwards to get a copy of it. It wasn't easy to find. I think my sister found it on Ebay. You were talking about getting requests for it, so I spent a month tracking it down, watched it, determined it simple enough for a first analysis, and did it as a favor to you. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? (Smiling ear to ear and laughing)
(Doing Therapy)
Three
MJ, ya know what? I'm curious. You said that you regretted having a high magic bias in the Terminator world. Why? Magic vs Technology. Many a fantasy story has a similar premise. If I become a wizard, you adjust the difficulty in the scenario accordingly. Give me a chance though, ya know? I know this wasn't meant to be a fantasy story, but why not? You seem to be locked into a pattern. "This is how we do things and this is how they're done." Think outside the box for once. Make it a magical fantasy story. If true magic exists anywhere in the world, The American Indians possess it. I was fully intending to look up American Indians and try to learn magic from them when I came of age. I might have become a wizard in the Terminator world. Think outside the box. Make it a Terminator fantasy story. Why not? As you've said, the story has yet to be told. How can you derail it?
(Doing Therapy)
"Just adjust the difficulty accordingly"? When the player argues over any change to their perception of Terminator? Also it's not all that easy to spontaneously adjust a scenarios difficulty. Or it's not in other systems I'm comfortable with. I don't imagine it's terribly easy here either.
Also drop the Final Countdown thing already, the comments about it ever couple months are annoying to everyone I imagine.
"Just adjust the difficulty accordingly"? When the player argues over any change to their perception of Terminator?
When the player is desperately trying to learn NOT to do that, yes.
Also it's not all that easy to spontaneously adjust a scenarios difficulty. Or it's not in other systems I'm comfortable with. I don't imagine it's terribly easy here either.
I think this is one he's making up as he goes along. It hasn't been written. How can it be difficult to change?
Also drop the Final Countdown thing already, the comments about it ever couple months are annoying to everyone I imagine.
And just imagine how much more annoying it must be to me. I know that doesn't mean very much to you, but bear with me. It's getting there. Sometimes I just wake up with it in my head.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Also drop the Final Countdown thing already, the comments about it ever couple months are annoying to everyone I imagine.
Did I not say I was laughing? It's funny to me now, in a sick, twisted kind of way. It's like two rednecks sitting on a porch going "Hey Zeke, remember that time we crashed the jeep and ended up in body casts??!?!!??! Weren't that a HOOT??!!!?!!?!" "Yup Billy Bob, that sure were a hoot!!!!! HAR HAR HAR!!!"
Their method of crashing the jeep was probably just as if not even more stupid.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Mistake.
(Doing Therapy)