Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Anthropology

2009-02-21T05:14:42Z

ENorman: fixed broken wikilink

Anthropology is a social science that studies [[human]]s from the perspective of their [[culture]]. This is different from disciplines such as [[psychology]], which uses the perspective of personality and cognition; or [[biology]], which focuses on the body. Anthropology studies the whole of the human condition: past, present, and future; biology, society, language and culture.

American Anthropology is usually divided into four separate disciplines, which overlap each other to varying degrees. Most [[Europe]]an schools do not place [[archaeology]] in the anthropology field.

'''Cultural anthropology''' is the study of human society and culture. Methods of research take a wide variety of forms, ranging from living among cultural groups to digging through American trash cans. Cultural anthropologists are currently in great demand by international corporations and the American Armed Forces.
Recently, many ethnographers are working in their own societies, studying social interaction among [[immigration|immigrant]] workers, the societies of homeless people, and the lives of [[Wall Street]] investors.

'''Archaeology''' studies the material remains of cultures. There are many subfields within arcaheology. Most archaeologists are involved in academia, studying a specific culture or cultural area's past. There are also many applied archaeologists who work for contractor companies or the government to preserve archaeological sites around the world.

'''Linguistic anthropology''' studies [[language]]s and their development. This is a relatively new field.

'''Physical anthropology''' studies primates—[[ape]]s, [[monkey]]s, human variation etc. In many ways it is more akin to [[biology]] than to traditional anthropology. Much of its focus is on the [[muscle|musculature]], [[skeleton|skeletal]] structure, and [[neurology]] of primates. Included in this field is forensic and medical anthropology. Forensic anthropology is using knowledge of [[bone]] structure, growth and [[taphonomy]] to aid in [[crime|criminal]] investigations. Medical anthropology is the study of health care systems and [[disease]] history.

== See also ==
* [[Biblical anthropology]]
[[Category:Anthropology| ]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T05:10:57Z

ENorman:

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: (interposed) I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that.

::::::: As to the rest of your statement, people obviously get more than "one chance", but it's not infinity. Justice necessarily entails harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and even the death penalty here on Earth. Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::By "one chance" I meant your life. I apologize for any confusion. Obviously you have multiple chances to be saved, but after you are dead not as much. And my statement about the physical punishment comes from the fact people eventually acclimate to harsh conditions, but not as much to the psychological. Of course, it could easily be a combination of the two. If you are there for all eternity, and nobody can (or will) help or even comfort you, that would be despair beyond anything.
::::::::Also, to CD's question about those who never had the chance to know God, there's a few ideas about that. Though not canon, Dante described the "virtuous pagans" and unbaptized as going to Limbo, the outermost ring of Hell where there is no punishment, but no chance of salvation either. There's also the idea of Purgatory, where they atone their sins before entering Heaven (as far as I know this is mostly a Catholic belief). [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: There wasn't any confusion. I was objecting to your characterization of an entire life as "one chance." People get multiple chances every day, 365 days a year, and decades of years. It takes determination to be hostile to every chance. And that determination ends up in depression, crime, misleading and harming others, and ultimately Hell. The logic is pretty obvious and undeniable. Notice how you didn't reply to my observation that the devil delights in harming people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::I didn't reply because I'm sure that he does in fact enjoy doing so. However, there are many ways to harm a person. And yes, there are multiple chances in life, I'll admit it was a faulty characterization. I'm sure that neither of us have any wish to see or know exactly what the Devil does in Hell to punish the damned. Perhaps it is something too terrible to imagine that makes whips and fire seem pleasant in comparison. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 00:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

:::::::CD, atheism in Canada has led to far less charity than in the U.S., both in average dollars and percentages. Atheists as a group censor Christianity, as in classroom prayer and preaching from the Bible. Let's tell the truth here: atheism is hostile to Christianity. Don't expect Christ, a real person, to be pleased about that. Our criminal justice system punishes people who selfishly cause harm. God can be expected to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T03:50:25Z

ENorman:

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: (interposed) I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that.

::::::: As to the rest of your statement, people obviously get more than "one chance", but it's not infinity. Justice necessarily entails harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and even the death penalty here on Earth. Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::By "one chance" I meant your life. I apologize for any confusion. Obviously you have multiple chances to be saved, but after you are dead not as much. And my statement about the physical punishment comes from the fact people eventually acclimate to harsh conditions, but not as much to the psychological. Of course, it could easily be a combination of the two. If you are there for all eternity, and nobody can (or will) help or even comfort you, that would be despair beyond anything.
::::::::Also, to CD's question about those who never had the chance to know God, there's a few ideas about that. Though not canon, Dante described the "virtuous pagans" and unbaptized as going to Limbo, the outermost ring of Hell where there is no punishment, but no chance of salvation either. There's also the idea of Purgatory, where they atone their sins before entering Heaven (as far as I know this is mostly a Catholic belief). [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)
:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T02:54:14Z

ENorman:

Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-10T03:48:50Z

ENorman: added a mystery

{{essay}} 
 

== Here are some mysteries or unresolved issues about World History: ==

#In what language did Adam speak with God, and Eve?
#What is the history of marriage?
#How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?
#Did (pre-Abraham) Hebrews in Egypt participate in building the pyramids?
#How did people construct the ziggurats?
#How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now?
#What is the origin of the name "Jesus"?<ref>http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm</ref>
#In which language did Jesus preach?
#Did genuine humor exist prior to Christianity?
#Why did Islam grow so rapidly?
#Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants?
#Is modern Israel a fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
#Is democracy compatible with Islam?
#Did people have a higher intelligence (IQ) in ancient times than today?
#Why was there the fall and decline of the Roman Empire?
#What was the purpose for the Nazca Lines being constructed?
== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]]

== Signatures Of Contributors ==

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-10T03:45:26Z

ENorman:

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)
==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-27T04:07:11Z

ENorman:

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: AlanS, don't rant on these pages. Contribute, or please leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Alternative Procedure ==

This project is quite ambitious, and generally, I'd say it is out of the reach of the high-school pupils you're addressing.
Wouldn't it be more effective to write a commentary to the ''gold standard of Biblical translations'', i.e., KJB, to explain its verses to the contemporary audience? The language of the KJB is so vigorous that any alteration just weakens it.
Of course, I'm coming from a German perspective: It took a genius like Martin Luther to come up with a usable German translation for the Bible. He introduced numerous metaphors and proverbs into the German language which still live on. Granted, there are more modern translation - esp. the ''Einheitsübersetzung'' of the EKD (Protestant churches in Germany) and the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. But though it's more exact historically, it lacks the power of Luther's language.
Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

: Your put-down aside, your approach does not address the problem of how culture changes the meaning of modern terms used by ''all'' translations of the [[Bible]]. An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::"the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students" A closer examination of the greatest work of history (perhaps we could agree on a list of the TOP 100) will show that the statement is just wrong. In fact, the few cases of teenagers who excelled in their fields are so well known as they '''were''' rare. (There is only ''one'' Mozart...)

::I'm sure that your students have a better command of '''American''' history than I do. And they should speak better English than I do. I don't know about their German, Latin, Dutch or French...

:: ''An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.'' A reasonable thing would be to explain the meaning of ''x, y, and z'' to the listeners as used in the translations.

:: The Greek originals were in use for a couple of centuries while Ancient Greek was still a living language. Somehow, no one so the necessity to rewrite the originals...

::[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:41, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::BRichtigen, you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. Your point about x, y, z, is not clear; the retranslation is precisely designed to explain x, y, z in a more accurate way as culture changes language. Ancient Greek, which I have studied (have you?) was not as vulnerable to cultural changes to language as today's society is.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:30, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::I looked into the claim ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers'', and the more I research, the more absurd it becomes.
::::Take for instance mathematics, one of the fields were prodigies are said to be found quite often. Granted, there are accomplishments by young men (Abel, Galois), and Gauss constructed the regular heptadekagon age 18. But these examples are few, and most times, the works of the teenage mathematician will be overshadowed by the works of the matured one - if he is allowed to life long enough.
::::Another area: Music. Mozart is the child prodigy par excellence, and others tried to imitate his success (Beethoven's father lied about the age of his son...). But there are only few works of teenagers worth listening to...
::::Which ''accomplishments in history'' are you thinking about?
::::And my Greek is negligible, I'm afraid... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Addendum: Your class voted on the [[Voted_Most_Influential_Person_in_American_History|most influential person in American history]]. None of the top four made his most important attributions to American history as a teenager... [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=496962 This] paper examines the age at which Nobel-winning economists published their important works, and also the ages at which they began their Nobel-related research. Table 1 lists the age at which they began their Nobel work; the youngest was 21, and the average was 29.3. They also briefly examine other fields: the mean "beginning age" for Nobel-winning physicists was 33.6, for chemists it was 31.6, and for physiology/medicine it was 33.2. Note that these are the ages when they began the work, not when the Nobel prize was awarded, as it often takes a number of years for the true importance of significant work to be recognised. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 11:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Well, fine, but few or none of those examples would rank as the greatest "works" in history. And as to BRichtigen's comment above, the issue of the "most influential person" is obviously very different from the issue of the "greatest works."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:22, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Could you give a few examples of the greatest works in history, preferably done by teenagers? Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Unique and useful project ==

Whatever the claims of your distractors and critics be, I believe it is a great project and quite suitable to the intended audience of the encyclopedia. You are quite right in spotting that the meaning of words change as the language evolves or change. This is especially true for English which has become the universal language and the de facto official language of the internet.I wonder whether any one has done this before. It may also be beneficial to recruit some one with special expertise in this field. --[[User:MRain|MRain]] 12:06, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks for your encouragement. I'm not aware of anyone else doing this (or anyone who has "special expertise" in the devolution of modern English). We welcome contributions to the project ... starting with yourself! I'll be adding new items as I discover them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: I think that this is an interesting project, and a good opportunity to try and get across some of the wordplay in the original language that the KJV and most other translations just lack; things like Gen 15:2 or Num 21:9 to give a couple of simple examples - also there's very often the case when words are conflated - like the "kill" example - it's good you want to distinguish the more murderous הרג from נכה- there are a number of separate roots that get translated inconsistently as "kill" and "slay", but you'll perhaps want also to distinguish הרג from רצח and נכה from שחט? Also the names are often clumsily translated as footnotes, if at all, rather than elegantly worked in - sometimes the transliteration of a name is inferior to its translation (IMHO, naturally). Added to that, the KJV (which is very bad in this respect) is incredibly inaccurate when it comes to plants and animals, and it'd be nice to see a scholarly yet poetic translation that is sensibly consistent. I look forward to seeing the results of this! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for your insights, Denise, and I look forward to your contributions to this project!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sadly I'm rather busy these days (and my Greek is not much good compared to my Hebrew, and my Aramaic is near non-existent), but I'll try and make some helpful suggestions. Do you mind if I add my twopennyworth to the project page, as far as examples of things I'd like to see included or avoided? I'm not necessarily always able to talk with reference to the KJV, and my interests (as you'll have gathered) are linguistic, aesthetic, and exactitude-focused rather than centred around political considerations. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Divine Right==

Sorry if I offended with the Divine Right translation. My intent was to say that only Christ has the ultimate authority to rule, not to suggest that claims of Divine Right by kings and despots had and validity. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 14:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Bearing arms ==

The text reads: "In Biblical times, as today, the bearing of arms to defend ones family and society was the hallmark of civilisation."

First, I corrected the British spelling in compliance with the MoS. Second, this description of the culture of arms is against the evidence, at least as far as the Greeks. In "History of the Peloponnesian War," Thucydides [http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html spoke] of wearing arms as a custom of the barbarians, and waxes poetic about the lack of necessity of bearing arms in Greece:
{{cquote|And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life.}}

Should I correct it?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:The Greeks believed in false Gods. Surely the correctness of Judaeo-Christian beliefs is obvious? Also, your reference to 'improper' spellings is unnecessary. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::You know I agree with you on that first point Bugler, but I don't think their being pagans affects their beliefs towards weapons. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean "improper" in the pejorative: it's just that the Manual of Style says not to use British spellings.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::Alex, I'm not that hung up about the spellings so if you wish to copy-edit go ahead. As for the other thing, how about 'hallmark of Judaeo-Christian civilization'? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Good idea! I'll change it, thanks Bugler. Good to see you again.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:47, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Kill vs Murder ==

One of the differences cites Ex. 20:13 and the clarification is to use "murder" instead of "kill". I agree with this clarification. I use the KJV with explanatory notes from the LDS church and the reference for Ex. 20:13 for the word "kill" says in an alternate translation from the Hebrew it means "murder". --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, I never knew that. By the way, Dean, does the standard LDS Bible use the [[KJV]] plus explanatory footnotes?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, it's a KJV with explanatory footnotes. The title page says it's the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are also footnotes and appendix referring to the "JST" which is the ''Joseph Smith Translation''. These are excerpts from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:43, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Rich ==

The entry is blatantly false. You have to look it up. You cant take someone's word for it. Just because it sounds interesting does not make it true. see [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4145&t=KJV here]. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Your link does not explain the meaning of the Greek term, but only its view of the Biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:05, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::What about [http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4145 this] and [http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=114459&category=REF this] and [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4145&version=kjv this]? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::The problem here is that the statement is being assumed true, even though there is no reason to believe that it is, aside from the claim of one user who has agreed to the removal of the item. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:21, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::: The underlying insight is promising, given the very different nature of the "rich" then compared to now. Improvement rather than [[censorship]] is the better approach here. My research reveals that the Greek term really means "fully supplied,"[http://time2changechurches.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html] as in being pampered or lazy.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Your source is a blog. I gave 4 separate sources that are greek lexicons. Which do you think is more reliable? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::a footnote to the CP commandments says "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others."--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Also, Aschlafly, while I share your concern with CPAdmin1's edits, I have to point out that he's right, it's not censorship to remove information because you think it's incorrect. Censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Even if he's wrong, it's assuming bad faith to call his deletions censorship.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Someone please provide a linguistic source that backs up the claim, or I will remove it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:50, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Having checked in my Liddell & Scott, I think it's safe to remove it pending a scholarly source that supports the variant reading. This is a wiki, we can always put it back if more research turns up such a reference. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 18:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Not so fast, folks. There is a key insight here that I've just learned from, as have others. The term "rich" DOES change in meaning over time, and the Greek term could not possibly mean what is meant today by "rich". Instead, the Greek term means "fully supplied." Perhaps "idle rich" would be a better translation or, in modern terms, the "complacent" or "lazy miser."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::The experts say that it means rich. Do you know better than the experts? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:11, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I still don't quite see how your reading squares with the Joseph of Arimathea citation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 19:18, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Tim, that is such a liberal argument: "the experts say that it means ...." The "experts" also say that [[global warming]] is a crisis and that more government spending is needed. God gave us all the ability to think for ourselves. Let's use it. Denise, I don't know what you're referencing specifically. If you mean a reference that Joseph of Arimathea was "rich" and yet a follower of Jesus, that would not disprove the translation of "idle rich" or "complacent" or "lazy miser." Indeed, Joseph had the time to intervene as needed.
::::::::::::::What? It is a liberal argument to say that people who have spent their life studying a language know that language better than someone who does can not even speak it. That argument sounds good to me. Are you saying that you have a better understanding of biblical greek than the people who have written those lexicons? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 21:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Everyone today is "rich" by the standards of Jesus' time, so presumably the term is more nuanced than that common term.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Since when is consulting people who have dedicated themselves to studying a subject and trusting them over the layman liberal? That is equivalent to me, having no ability in building anything whatsoever, designing and constructing my house myself as opposed to hiring people who make their living doing that because getting their help is liberal. Your definition of liberal is a bit silly Andy, and seems to fall along the lines of "whoever does not wholly agree with what you, Andy Schalfly, believe. If trusting experts makes somebody a liberal, then I'd rather be a liberal than blindly rush into something as major as translating God's Word passed down to mankind without somebody who knows what they are talking about.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:15, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Folks, blindly follow your chosen "experts" somewhere else. This is a wiki devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. Understand? That means opening your mind and actually using it. Parroting what you perceive to be an "expert" view might help you win the favor of some liberals, but our project is at a higher level than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:35, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal. In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything. Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's? Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"? Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge? If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge. A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy. That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on. Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is? If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::All of your "experts" are simply sites citing the exact same source, Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. To suggest that questioning that ''single'' definition is rejecting all authority is absurd. Healthy skepticism is necessary to any intellectual project such as this. Relying on a single authority as definitive is absurd. The biblical concept of "rich" is far different than the present. Denying that is patently ridiculous, and ignores millenia of economic and social change. That is why this project is necessary. Like Luther's 500 years ago, it is an attempt to ground our knowledge in the original ''meaning'' of God's word. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such." Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals. The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one. In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.

:::::::::::::::: Most "experts" say there is [[global warming]]. Most experts say that government should raise taxes. Most experts say that government should increase spending. In fact, you can go down the entire list of liberal viewpoints and find that most "experts" support them. Give up your ability to think for yourself, just a little, and you will probably never get it back.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::: But those are experts in other fields. These are experts IN THE LANGUAGE. This is less being open-minded, and has now been degraded to Ostrich theory. What does the meaning of ONE WORD have to do with what Dr. John Q. Scientist has to say about [[global warming]]? You are basically saying "disregard all science, all research, all facts, make junk up as you go along."[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 23:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] . Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy. The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation. A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: "plousios" means "abundantly supplied," not "rich". "Rich in mercy" is an awkward translation at best. The context must be considered to find the right English word for "abundantly supplied."

: Your comment on "unicorn" was silly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Tetragrammata ==

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Grace==
I think the translation of grace is overly simplistic. To me grace is not merely generosity, but generosity towards those in whom it is undeserved. And is a gift specifically ftom the Lord to mankind, and allows for forgivness of the unrepentant sinner and ultimately is the reason God loves each and every one of His creation irrespective of whether they honour His word.

I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, and it is an honourable cause, it's just that IMO grace has always been a concept requiring more understanding than the word itself conveys, and is a central concept to Christianity itself, and by changing it to 'generosity' may hinder people from seeking its true, deeper meaning.

Grace is one of my favourite concepts to learn about and (attempt to) explain to others as I feel not only the concept, but the word itself, has a beauty to it that shouldn't be tampered with --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 19:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Koran

2008-12-27T04:00:41Z

ENorman: removed bias. Unless we put the verses of the bible that are pro-slavery and raping women in conquest, this should not be here.

[[Image:Opened Qur'an.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A copy of the Qur'an opened for study.]]
The '''Qur'an''', also called the '''Koran''' ('''القرآن''' in [[Arabic]]), is the sacred scripture of [[Islam]].

The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet [[Muhammad]] over a number of years in the 7th century AD, purportedly through the [[angel]] [[Gabriel]]. The scripture is organized (roughly) according to the length of the chapters. There are 114 suras (or chapters), with many of the later and more warlike ones appearing near the beginning. The Prophet's first revelations were received in [[Mecca]]. He was exiled from Mecca after commanding the people to repent of [[polytheism]] and join the One True God, (in [[Arabic]], his name is [[Allah]]). The Prophet Muhammad then travelled to [[Medina]] and converted the entire city. He led them to a victory over the polytheists at Mecca.

The verses are of two kinds: Meccan and Medinan. Meccan verses are characterized by praise of a monotheistic God and condemnation of polytheism. Medinan verses reflect divine laws and commandments that would help Muhammad in his new role as a leader of men; that is to say, the verses are concerned more with the social laws and obligations of Muslims.

The Qur'an has influenced a great number of people over the centuries, especially in the [[Middle East]]. (A link to the text of the Qur'an and translations can be found below.)

Several commentaries on the Qur'an exist. These are labelled as "tafsir" (the word for "commentary.") Allah himself is regarded as the greatest Tafsir. Muhammad is the second-best (his tafsir is called "[[hadith]]," the Words of the Prophet). The Companions of the Prophet also produced their own tafsirs. It is important to note that "tafsir" is ''not'' scripture; it is a companion to understanding scripture.

It is also important to note that Muhammad is not worshiped as a God. The Muslims are [[monotheistic]]. The Qur'an states that God has no equals, nor was he begotten by a greater being, ''nor has he begotten any other being.'' Muslims may occasionally view [[Jesus]] and the [[Holy Spirit]] as infringing on God's divinity. The Christian doctrine of the [[Holy Trinity]] is regarded as tantamount to polytheism by Muslims.

==Translation==
The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet [[Muhammad]] in what the Angel said was "clear Arabic." This has come to mean (for many reasons) that Arabic is the most beautiful language of all. The Qur'an also contains a challenge: if you do not believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, try to make something just as beautiful and good as it! This is the doctrine of inimitability (no copy can be made), or "i'jaz." These two doctrines, along with the inherent difficulty of translation, severely limit the value of translations of the Qur'an. In other words, the only Qur'an is the Arabic Qur'an. English versions of the Qur'an are regarded as commentaries.

Two of the most famous and widely-read English translations of the Qur'an are those by A. Yusuf Ali and M. Marmaduke Pickthall <ref>http://www.wokingmuslim.org/pers/pickthall/conversion.htm</ref> (and see links below).

==Sources==
Scholars and theologians have identified six main sources for the contents of the Qur'an. ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'' states: "The sources of the Koran be reduced to -

*The [[Old Testament]] (canonical and apocryphal) and the hybrid [[Judaism]] of the late rabbinical schools. During Mohammed's time the Jews were numerous in many parts of Arabia, especially around Medina. Familiarity with them is undoubtedly responsible for many Old Testament stories alluded to in Qur'an. Later Judaism and Rabbinism are equally well represented (Geiger, "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?", Wiesbaden, 1833; tr. "Judaism and Islam", Madras, 1898).
*The [[New Testament]] (canonical and apocryphal) and various heretical doctrines. On his journeys between Syria, Hijaz, and Yemen, Mohammed had every opportunity to come in close touch with Yemenite, Abyssinian, Ghassanite, and Syrian [[Christianity|Christians]], especially heretics. Hence, while the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Qur'an has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends, on the other hand, are one of the original sources of Koranic faith. (See Muir, op. cit. infra, 66-239; Tisdall, "The Original Sources of the Qur'an", London, 1905, 55-211.)
*[[Sabaism]], a combination of Judaism, [[Manicheism]], and old disfigured Babylonian [[heathen]]ism.
*[[Zoroastrianism]]. On account of Persia's political influence in the north-eastern part of Arabia, it is natural to find Zoroastrian elements in the Qur'an.
*[[Hanifism]], the adherents of which, called Hanifs, must have been considerable in number and influence, as it is known from contemporary Arabian sources that twelve of Mohammed's followers were members of this sect.
*Native ancient and contemporary Arabian heathen beliefs and practices. Wellhausen has collected in his "Reste des arabischen Heidentums" (Berlin, 1897) all that is known of pre-Islamic Arabian heathen belief, traditions, customs, and superstitions, many of which are either alluded to or accepted and incorporated in the Koran. From the various sects and creeds, and Abul-Fida, the well-known historian and geographer of the twelfth century, it is clear that religious beliefs and practices of the Arabs of Mohammed's day form one of the many sources of Islam. From this heathen source Islam derived the practices of [[polygamy]] and [[slavery]], which Mohammed sanctioned by adopting them."<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08692a.htm Koran], by Gabriel Oussani, ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Arab American]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://tanzil.info/ Tanzil Quran Navigator (searchable Quran and 41 translations)]
*[http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/ Ali English translation]
*[http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/index.htm Pickthall English translation]

[[Category:Religious Texts]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-27T03:15:49Z

ENorman:

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: AlanS, don't rant on these pages. Contribute, or please leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Alternative Procedure ==

This project is quite ambitious, and generally, I'd say it is out of the reach of the high-school pupils you're addressing.
Wouldn't it be more effective to write a commentary to the ''gold standard of Biblical translations'', i.e., KJB, to explain its verses to the contemporary audience? The language of the KJB is so vigorous that any alteration just weakens it.
Of course, I'm coming from a German perspective: It took a genius like Martin Luther to come up with a usable German translation for the Bible. He introduced numerous metaphors and proverbs into the German language which still live on. Granted, there are more modern translation - esp. the ''Einheitsübersetzung'' of the EKD (Protestant churches in Germany) and the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. But though it's more exact historically, it lacks the power of Luther's language.
Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

: Your put-down aside, your approach does not address the problem of how culture changes the meaning of modern terms used by ''all'' translations of the [[Bible]]. An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::"the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students" A closer examination of the greatest work of history (perhaps we could agree on a list of the TOP 100) will show that the statement is just wrong. In fact, the few cases of teenagers who excelled in their fields are so well known as they '''were''' rare. (There is only ''one'' Mozart...)

::I'm sure that your students have a better command of '''American''' history than I do. And they should speak better English than I do. I don't know about their German, Latin, Dutch or French...

:: ''An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.'' A reasonable thing would be to explain the meaning of ''x, y, and z'' to the listeners as used in the translations.

:: The Greek originals were in use for a couple of centuries while Ancient Greek was still a living language. Somehow, no one so the necessity to rewrite the originals...

::[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:41, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::BRichtigen, you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. Your point about x, y, z, is not clear; the retranslation is precisely designed to explain x, y, z in a more accurate way as culture changes language. Ancient Greek, which I have studied (have you?) was not as vulnerable to cultural changes to language as today's society is.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:30, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::I looked into the claim ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers'', and the more I research, the more absurd it becomes.
::::Take for instance mathematics, one of the fields were prodigies are said to be found quite often. Granted, there are accomplishments by young men (Abel, Galois), and Gauss constructed the regular heptadekagon age 18. But these examples are few, and most times, the works of the teenage mathematician will be overshadowed by the works of the matured one - if he is allowed to life long enough.
::::Another area: Music. Mozart is the child prodigy par excellence, and others tried to imitate his success (Beethoven's father lied about the age of his son...). But there are only few works of teenagers worth listening to...
::::Which ''accomplishments in history'' are you thinking about?
::::And my Greek is negligible, I'm afraid... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Addendum: Your class voted on the [[Voted_Most_Influential_Person_in_American_History|most influential person in American history]]. None of the top four made his most important attributions to American history as a teenager... [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=496962 This] paper examines the age at which Nobel-winning economists published their important works, and also the ages at which they began their Nobel-related research. Table 1 lists the age at which they began their Nobel work; the youngest was 21, and the average was 29.3. They also briefly examine other fields: the mean "beginning age" for Nobel-winning physicists was 33.6, for chemists it was 31.6, and for physiology/medicine it was 33.2. Note that these are the ages when they began the work, not when the Nobel prize was awarded, as it often takes a number of years for the true importance of significant work to be recognised. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 11:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Well, fine, but few or none of those examples would rank as the greatest "works" in history. And as to BRichtigen's comment above, the issue of the "most influential person" is obviously very different from the issue of the "greatest works."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:22, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Could you give a few examples of the greatest works in history, preferably done by teenagers? Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Unique and useful project ==

Whatever the claims of your distractors and critics be, I believe it is a great project and quite suitable to the intended audience of the encyclopedia. You are quite right in spotting that the meaning of words change as the language evolves or change. This is especially true for English which has become the universal language and the de facto official language of the internet.I wonder whether any one has done this before. It may also be beneficial to recruit some one with special expertise in this field. --[[User:MRain|MRain]] 12:06, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks for your encouragement. I'm not aware of anyone else doing this (or anyone who has "special expertise" in the devolution of modern English). We welcome contributions to the project ... starting with yourself! I'll be adding new items as I discover them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: I think that this is an interesting project, and a good opportunity to try and get across some of the wordplay in the original language that the KJV and most other translations just lack; things like Gen 15:2 or Num 21:9 to give a couple of simple examples - also there's very often the case when words are conflated - like the "kill" example - it's good you want to distinguish the more murderous הרג from נכה- there are a number of separate roots that get translated inconsistently as "kill" and "slay", but you'll perhaps want also to distinguish הרג from רצח and נכה from שחט? Also the names are often clumsily translated as footnotes, if at all, rather than elegantly worked in - sometimes the transliteration of a name is inferior to its translation (IMHO, naturally). Added to that, the KJV (which is very bad in this respect) is incredibly inaccurate when it comes to plants and animals, and it'd be nice to see a scholarly yet poetic translation that is sensibly consistent. I look forward to seeing the results of this! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for your insights, Denise, and I look forward to your contributions to this project!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sadly I'm rather busy these days (and my Greek is not much good compared to my Hebrew, and my Aramaic is near non-existent), but I'll try and make some helpful suggestions. Do you mind if I add my twopennyworth to the project page, as far as examples of things I'd like to see included or avoided? I'm not necessarily always able to talk with reference to the KJV, and my interests (as you'll have gathered) are linguistic, aesthetic, and exactitude-focused rather than centred around political considerations. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Divine Right==

Sorry if I offended with the Divine Right translation. My intent was to say that only Christ has the ultimate authority to rule, not to suggest that claims of Divine Right by kings and despots had and validity. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 14:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Bearing arms ==

The text reads: "In Biblical times, as today, the bearing of arms to defend ones family and society was the hallmark of civilisation."

First, I corrected the British spelling in compliance with the MoS. Second, this description of the culture of arms is against the evidence, at least as far as the Greeks. In "History of the Peloponnesian War," Thucydides [http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html spoke] of wearing arms as a custom of the barbarians, and waxes poetic about the lack of necessity of bearing arms in Greece:
{{cquote|And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life.}}

Should I correct it?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:The Greeks believed in false Gods. Surely the correctness of Judaeo-Christian beliefs is obvious? Also, your reference to 'improper' spellings is unnecessary. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::You know I agree with you on that first point Bugler, but I don't think their being pagans affects their beliefs towards weapons. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean "improper" in the pejorative: it's just that the Manual of Style says not to use British spellings.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::Alex, I'm not that hung up about the spellings so if you wish to copy-edit go ahead. As for the other thing, how about 'hallmark of Judaeo-Christian civilization'? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Good idea! I'll change it, thanks Bugler. Good to see you again.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:47, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Kill vs Murder ==

One of the differences cites Ex. 20:13 and the clarification is to use "murder" instead of "kill". I agree with this clarification. I use the KJV with explanatory notes from the LDS church and the reference for Ex. 20:13 for the word "kill" says in an alternate translation from the Hebrew it means "murder". --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, I never knew that. By the way, Dean, does the standard LDS Bible use the [[KJV]] plus explanatory footnotes?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, it's a KJV with explanatory footnotes. The title page says it's the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are also footnotes and appendix referring to the "JST" which is the ''Joseph Smith Translation''. These are excerpts from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:43, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Rich ==

The entry is blatantly false. You have to look it up. You cant take someone's word for it. Just because it sounds interesting does not make it true. see [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4145&t=KJV here]. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Your link does not explain the meaning of the Greek term, but only its view of the Biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:05, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::What about [http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4145 this] and [http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=114459&category=REF this] and [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4145&version=kjv this]? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::The problem here is that the statement is being assumed true, even though there is no reason to believe that it is, aside from the claim of one user who has agreed to the removal of the item. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:21, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::: The underlying insight is promising, given the very different nature of the "rich" then compared to now. Improvement rather than [[censorship]] is the better approach here. My research reveals that the Greek term really means "fully supplied,"[http://time2changechurches.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html] as in being pampered or lazy.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Your source is a blog. I gave 4 separate sources that are greek lexicons. Which do you think is more reliable? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::a footnote to the CP commandments says "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others."--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Also, Aschlafly, while I share your concern with CPAdmin1's edits, I have to point out that he's right, it's not censorship to remove information because you think it's incorrect. Censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Even if he's wrong, it's assuming bad faith to call his deletions censorship.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Someone please provide a linguistic source that backs up the claim, or I will remove it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:50, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Having checked in my Liddell & Scott, I think it's safe to remove it pending a scholarly source that supports the variant reading. This is a wiki, we can always put it back if more research turns up such a reference. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 18:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Not so fast, folks. There is a key insight here that I've just learned from, as have others. The term "rich" DOES change in meaning over time, and the Greek term could not possibly mean what is meant today by "rich". Instead, the Greek term means "fully supplied." Perhaps "idle rich" would be a better translation or, in modern terms, the "complacent" or "lazy miser."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::The experts say that it means rich. Do you know better than the experts? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:11, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I still don't quite see how your reading squares with the Joseph of Arimathea citation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 19:18, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Tim, that is such a liberal argument: "the experts say that it means ...." The "experts" also say that [[global warming]] is a crisis and that more government spending is needed. God gave us all the ability to think for ourselves. Let's use it. Denise, I don't know what you're referencing specifically. If you mean a reference that Joseph of Arimathea was "rich" and yet a follower of Jesus, that would not disprove the translation of "idle rich" or "complacent" or "lazy miser." Indeed, Joseph had the time to intervene as needed.
::::::::::::::What? It is a liberal argument to say that people who have spent their life studying a language know that language better than someone who does can not even speak it. That argument sounds good to me. Are you saying that you have a better understanding of biblical greek than the people who have written those lexicons? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 21:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Everyone today is "rich" by the standards of Jesus' time, so presumably the term is more nuanced than that common term.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Since when is consulting people who have dedicated themselves to studying a subject and trusting them over the layman liberal? That is equivalent to me, having no ability in building anything whatsoever, designing and constructing my house myself as opposed to hiring people who make their living doing that because getting their help is liberal. Your definition of liberal is a bit silly Andy, and seems to fall along the lines of "whoever does not wholly agree with what you, Andy Schalfly, believe. If trusting experts makes somebody a liberal, then I'd rather be a liberal than blindly rush into something as major as translating God's Word passed down to mankind without somebody who knows what they are talking about.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:15, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] . Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy. The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation. A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: "plousios" means "abundantly supplied," not "rich". "Rich in mercy" is an awkward translation at best. The context must be considered to find the right English word for "abundantly supplied."

: Your comment on "unicorn" was silly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Tetragrammata ==

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Grace==
I think the translation of grace is overly simplistic. To me grace is not merely generosity, but generosity towards those in whom it is undeserved. And is a gift specifically ftom the Lord to mankind, and allows for forgivness of the unrepentant sinner and ultimately is the reason God loves each and every one of His creation irrespective of whether they honour His word.

I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, and it is an honourable cause, it's just that IMO grace has always been a concept requiring more understanding than the word itself conveys, and is a central concept to Christianity itself, and by changing it to 'generosity' may hinder people from seeking its true, deeper meaning.

Grace is one of my favourite concepts to learn about and (attempt to) explain to others as I feel not only the concept, but the word itself, has a beauty to it that shouldn't be tampered with --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 19:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-26T03:58:40Z

ENorman:

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-26T03:49:51Z

ENorman:

Talk:Astronomy

2008-12-20T15:52:24Z

ENorman: request to rewrite article

==Theory of Evolution==

How does this relate to astronomy? Astronomy was a science hundreds of years before Darwin. "evolution of the universe" Is being used way out of context to place it in the same reference as Theory of Evolution. Conservative, why the need for YEC views? Do we have to start adding OEC views as well as the views from all the different sects of Christianity?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::There is a need for conservative views at '''Conserv'''apedia. YEC is very conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::So what about OEC? Or other Christian sects? YEC is conservative to YECs but not to everyone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:You did not answer the question about TOE. I do not understand the grounds of your statement other than trying to find another platform to try to slander the theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I wrote: "For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[1]" I proved the previous statement. Case closed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Case close? Your cite has nothing to do with the relationship between TOE and the evolution of the universe statement.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Tim, if you would stop using inflammatory terms like ''slander'' perhaps your points would be easier to follow.
*Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.
The theory of evolution is not a person. Even if someone is called the "father of evolution", that does not give the idea personhood. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed the definition of Slander –noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: You can slander an idea. That is besides the point the issue is that conservative goes out of his way to slander TOE in any scientific article he can. This is just getting ridiculous. The article is about astronomy for goodness sakes, where would TOE fit in? The cite that he used showed no relationship but he had the time, and nerve, to create a false impression. This is the issue, personaly I see this as vandalism (Unrelated content being place just for one's POV).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==excluding earth?==

I'm deleting "excluding earth". Astronomers work with the earth, too, as a body in space. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:OK, it's back in. Why? Without factoring in the earth's motion and gravity, it would have been much harder to know where to look for Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto. But at least the article itself has become real again. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice quote mining, by the way. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Now that is just sad==

You know Conservative if I were to do the same thing you just did to astronomy, but using an evolutionary POV it would be vandlism. Colin was in the right changing your edits since they were unjustified for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:EDIT WAR!!! Ended by sysop protection with no discussion. Why can't all of Colin's text be used, followed by the YEC stuff? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Opinion stated as fact ==

We don't state liberal opinion as fact here. ColinR inserted, "The fact that radiotelescopes can detect the light of stars billions of light years away proves that the universe is billions of years old, as the light must have left those stars that long ago to reach us now travelling at the speed of light."

No credible, unbiased scientist would claim that "proves" billions of years old, and no citation was given for it. That's a liberal opinion and should be stated as such, if stated at all. There are many reasons why that falls short of a "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a liberal opinion that velocity = distance divided by time? News to me, Aschlafly. To figure out the time light has traveled, simple take the distance divided by the speed of light. ColinR is correct. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 23:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The line about 'proving' the universe to be billions of years old can be left out without omitting the section on recent research, which is well supported by evidence. To remove this while only leaving in the Young Earth Creationist stuff and then locking the article to prevent editing is risible. Here is the excised material, from which I have removed the disputed last sentence. Please unlock the article so that this can be reinserted. It does your project no favors at all to ignore scientific research in favor of YEC theories. At least you can present both and let the reader decide.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Recent research==

Astronomers have searched for ways to find out accurately how old a [[star]] is. A new technique called gyrochronology, which works this out based on the star’s rate of rotation, has just been announced and will be published in the Astrophysical Journal. <ref> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5479</ref> Knowing the age of the host star of a [[planetary system]] helps astronomers understand how planetary systems change over time.

The research shows that the rotation period of a star changes steadily and predictably in line with its age and color. Thus, by measuring two of these attributes you can determine the third. The star’s color is a visible sign of its [[mass]] or surface temperature. The age of the [[[Sun]] is believed by astronomers to be 4.6 billion years <ref> http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/Energy-of-Sun-better.PDF </ref> and can be used to calibrate the gyrochronology of most other stars.

There are other methods of working out a star’s age, but they have much larger uncertainties than gyrochronology. Unlike some other methods, gyrochronology also works well for stars not found in star clusters (‘field’ stars). It is used to calculate the age of stars that burn their hydrogen fuel at a predictable and steady rate; it does not work so well for younger stars, although the researchers hope to do future work to extend the method to these.

The forthcoming [[NASA]] Kepler Mission will yield more information about the rotation period of other stars, as this is information gleaned while searching for the transit of new planets orbiting across their disks. Once researchers have more precise ages for stars, other problems of chronometry can be solved and a better study made of the way astronomical phenomena change through time, using the stars themselves as clocks. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"believed by astronomers"; what does this mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem revising the version I was using, I'll agree it needs a lot of work. But this entry is on '''astronomy''' not evolution, not YEC, not OEC, etc. Astronomy has little, if not nothing, to do with evolution. Cosmology, yes. Astronomy, no. Moreover, Conservative's overused misquotes are simply that. Overused misquotes. They have nothing to do with the actual field of astronomy, that is the study of space. The revision I used didn't repeat the same junk that Conservative posts on any article that doesn't fit his ideology. NOWHERE in this site has YEC been officially endorsed. Even so, Conservative is bent on advancing that view anywhere he can. The current revision discusses geology and the Big Bang '''theory''', with Big Bang being the only thing that actually is somewhat relevant to an entry on astronomy, though it has no place other than a brief mention. The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption." Given this, it is a discredit to ignore their hard work because it doesn't fit in with your "facts." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, so it is a fact they beleive it, the question is, what facts do they beleive? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary astronomy is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." [1] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Facts==
I'm confused here, and as an hostotian, not without good reason. It is a scientific fact there are 8 planets. One year ago it was a scientific fact there were 9 planets. Now, in historical reporting which "fact" do I use? And one reason I got into history is because I don't follow the fads of the moment, which the 8 planet fact theory currently dominates. How do I know science, or what it calls facts, won't change again tomorrow? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's like the word "alive". It has a colloquial meaning, and science has worked with and suffered the consequences. The planets used to be the "wanderers" - the "stars" that moved about the firmament. There used to be 5 known to man (Hg, V, M, J, S) As we got to know our system better, we readily found U & N, and the tiny P. Then we found tens of thousands more and the distinctions blurred. Especially with the identification of a couple of rocks that, were Pluto to be a plant, they would be to. So the a definition was created that pretty much limits the word "planet" to the first eight. By the way, "history" is constantly undergoing revision and deeper understanding, too. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::So facts today may not be facts tomorrow. I thought facts existed in nature, independent and observable; I didn't know facts were established by concensus, only to be revised later. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::You're confusing actual facts with terminology and jargon. It is a fact that Pluto exists. It is no longer considered a planet under the current definition, but the definition was never a "fact." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Forgive me ==

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have studied a little astonomy and a lot of theology and I'm not sure why the astronomy page has only a short paragraph on astronomy, then a bunch of stuff that is important to state, but is really kind of fringe among even devout Christians. Explain? Or am I overstepping my bounds? The above comment, for example, is sort of irrelevant. Just because some discoveries have been made and definitions changed doesn't change physics.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the bottom line is facts, according to accepted "science", are voted upon, they are not something that exist in nature? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know where to jump in here, but I've seen two objectionable liberal edits:

* claiming that something "proves" the universe is billion of years old, which is a liberal opinion that did not even have a citation. No objective, credible scientist would claim "proof" of that view.

* deleting actual quotes by scientists, apparently under the view explained in [[quote mining]] that it is improper to quote someone for a statement critical of his own beliefs. Those quotes are factual and informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, I never asserted the universe is billions of years old, I simply reverted to a version that said this. If you want to change it, please, feel free to. Second, if they are actual quotes by scientists, it should be no problem to cite the original article. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, ColinR's argument does prove that the Universe is billions of years old. The equation is time = distance divided by velocity. Plug in the distance to a distant galaxy, divide by the speed of light, and you get an answer that is billions of years. Billions of years is greater than 6000 years. There's no opinion here at all. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Interesting premise, the problem is ColinR does not even make the arguement you claim. He says,
:*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:All ColinR claims is '''''it is a fact''''' that scientists beleive something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they beleive.
:I beleive it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I beleive it make it real? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Is your fact supported by many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)\

:::Ok, why don't you rephrase this statement,
:::*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:::and '''show us what the factual conclusions are''', other than the fact that "many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists" beleive something or other. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you really want me to explain how our current understanding of astronomy was derived? I can, but I'll admit, I can't do it justice, unlike several astro professors I've had who could. If you're asking me to outline every "fact," then you're asking the impossible and refusing to accept the basic nature of science. New information leads to changes. Case in point, discovery of other trans-Neptunian objects, leading to the reclassification of Pluto. So, please, clarify what you want, Rob. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic. I only asked for conclusions. They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so. All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...". And it would ''in fact'' be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because ''they'' don't, and they ''can't''. Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would ''still'' have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter". That ''still'' does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature. And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: How about the cosmic microwave background? There is a theory as to what the observed data should be, and the curve it predicted, and the observations by COBE and other satellites?[http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm] --01:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No, they wouldn't say "this is my judgement." They'd say, "all the evidence gathered points to this conclusion, and the conclusion reached accurately predicts other things." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation. While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them. If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know." One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example. This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation. With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Quotes of scientists that are critical of theories should be included. They should not be concealed here, or merely linked to. As long as the quotes were said, and particularly if they go against the interest of the speaker, they should be here.

: Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation. See [[Karl Popper]]. I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::We are dealing with an issue of method. What do we mean by "scientific fact"? Are "scientific facts" phenomenoa independently observable in naure, the "fact" there are nine planets for example, or are "facts" determined by a concensus evalution, the "fact" there are eight planets? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: First, define planet. Then we can talk about the question of how many have been discovered orbiting the sun. The definition of a planet is much more difficult than nailing down the distance light travels in a year. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::We are dealing with an issue of method. A planet we shall define as '''fact A'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I don't quite understand what you are referring to. We can talk about definitions of planets, and we can talk about how many planets are discovered. The number of planets around a star is not a 'fact' as such. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not ''facts'' written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::ok so we're getting closer to the method. For example, what ColinR and others wish to insert is '''the fact''' that '''most beleive''' "'''X'''", (X being undefined as either theory or fact). But the the fact is, the fact they wish to insert is, the fact that most beleive undefined "'''X'''". This is the factual basis of their "facts", the fact that most people beleive it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
(outdent)
: Lets take another approach to this. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations. Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period. This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined. Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is). There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance). This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values. The [[starlight problem]] is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.
: One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away. The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the [[starlight problem]] which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:*''The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. ''
::I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes. Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one. See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: My apologies, but ''what?!'' None of this has any implication on the existence of God. Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories). Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those. I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Mtur, forget it. RobS is bent on using psuedo-logic and twisting people's words. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.
:: And so, I bought a copy of the article...
<blockquote>Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote>
:: This in turn is refering to an earlier passage in the text:
<blockquote>Extrapolating from trends in mass and orbital distance within this more representative subset, the Australian physicists find that "Jupiters are probably very typical" of the as-yet-unobserved exoplanets, says Lineweaver. They predict that 22 new Jupiter-like exoplanets--as big as Jupiter or larger, orbiting from just beyond the distance of Mars to a bit beyond the distance of Jupiter--will be found orbiting around the 1000 or so stars that have been monitored for more than 3 years. The prospect of familiar-looking planetary systems is more encouraging than earlier extrapolations had suggested, says Lineweaver, because by focusing only on well-studied stars they reduced observational bias and they also included the latest discoveries. (Extrapolation to the abundance of exoplanets as small and distant as Saturn is not yet advisable, the pair says.)</blockquote>
:: That theories are still being made and disproven and more evidence is coming in every year means that this area remains a rich area for research. If you are going to cite something, cite a paper not a page of out of context quotes.
:: Going to Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep and another $10 to Sciencemag.org... this article is talking about how deep field telescopes of galaxies formed about 10 billion years ago matured quicker than some theories suggested. Why waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies and not others. And so, the critique of the model:
<blockquote>As findings from these surveys cascade into the literature, they are shaking up notions about the evolution of star birth in the young cosmos. Observers have found that some galaxies matured quickly after the big bang and then flamed out, forming giant blobs of stars that may have barely changed in at least 10 billion years. Another population of galaxies kept evolving, churning out new stars for eons and gradually settling into mature but mildly fertile galaxies such as our Milky Way.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Current theories of galaxy formation can't explain why concussive waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies but not others--and why some of those fierce stellar fires got snuffed after a few billion years. Startled by their own data, a few observers have implied that modelers of the cosmos need new ideas to describe our universe's combustive childhood (Science, 23 January, p. 460).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Theorists aren't yet ready to revise equations on their cluttered whiteboards, but they agree that the surveys illuminate serious flaws. "We're starting from a shaky foundation," says cosmologist Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, U.K. "We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." Fellow theorist Simon White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, concurs: "The simple recipes in published models do not reproduce the star formation we see. Theorists are now having to grow up."</blockquote>
:: These are paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of an article that goes on for a few pages. The article is about the observational data of the sky surveys, how previous ones have been lacking in one way or another (too wide and shallow or narrow and deep) and how the observations of several space telescopes at different wavelengths and the improvement of adaptive optics for ground based telescopes are improving the picture of the early universe that will in turn give large amounts of data for theorists to check against. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: If you want to quote Carlos Frenk about cosmology, go to an article about cosmology[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&sim_query=YES&aut_xct=NO&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=Frenk%2Cc.&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&min_score=&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&sort=SCORE&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1] - not from an article about sky surveys that is being used to disprove existing theories and models. In paticular, he's being critical of himself[http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~csf/homepage/ResearchInterests.html] - his research is "large-scale structure, galaxy formation and supercomputer simulations of the formation of cosmic structures." I am fairly sure that he is working on some new theories and models of star formation that will produce more accurate models (the article above is 3 years old, last month he published "Modelling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model" which is exactly what he is talking about the shaky foundation, and back in November 2005 he published "The first generation of star-forming haloes", a bit earlier he published "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars"). I do not believe it is fair to categorize him as 'critical of the materialistic science.' but rather he is working to extend it. Scott Tremaine was not critical of the work that he was commenting on and though it to be encouraging. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not a scientist, but I was my dad and I shared a hobby of astronomy when I was a kid. It is some of my best memories. I went to college, I studied science, although I majored in business. I am a practicing Christian. This whole argument is really weird. There is actually no debate among scientists about the fact of the universe being billions of years old. Why can't God have created this incredible universe back then? Why would anyone of faith try to make up arguments? If you ''believe'' it to be wrong, then it is a matter of faith, but don't try to make science match your faith. I can't ''prove'' God exists, but so what? I know He is there, and I don't need a scientist to tell me he is or isn't. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 09:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's not so much an argument about the age of the stars as about the implications this has for [[Young Earth creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good point, however if we are going to give a major edit space for the YEC POV should we not do this for all?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I want to address an earlier comment:

::All ColinR claims is it is a fact that scientists believe something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they believe. I believe it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I believe it make it real?

This statement is confusing facts about nature with facts about stated opinions.
*There are such things as facts about stated opinions.
*For example, it is a fact that someone stated "I believe it I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday." It is not a fact that he will hit the power ball. It is not necessarily a fact that he really does believe this. But it '''is''' a fact that he '''stated''' that he '''believes''' this.
*How important a fact about a stated opinion is depends on '''whose''' statement it is.
*A fact about a stated opinion is meaningless to me unless I have a personal judgement about the individual making that statement.
*My judgement may be different than someone elses.
*A fact about a stated opinion is interesting to many readers if there are many readers who have personal judgements about the individual making the statement. It is interesting to few readers if there are few readers to have such judgements.
*Facts about stated opinions are worth putting into an encyclopedia if there are many readers who have such judgements.
*'''My''' own stated opinions are only interesting to the few people who know whether or not they respect my opinions. They do ''not'' belong in an encyclopedia article even when attributed to me. They belong in an article ''even less'' when no source is given but are simply stated ''ex cathedra:"
:::"Conservapedia editor "dpbsmith" believes the Mac OS is better than Windows." Honest, but boring. Nobody cares.
:::"The Mac OS is better than Windows." Highly dishonest. It's just my opinion and I'm not even saying so.
:::"The Mac OS is generally regarded as better than Windows." Even worse, because it's ''concealing'' the fact that it's just my opinion.
:::"The late science-fiction author Douglas Adams was a Macintosh fan." Now we're getting ''somewhere,'' because there ''are'' people who care about his opinion. ''And'' by identifying him as a science-fiction author, everyone can judge whether they care to pay attention to such a person's opinions about computer operating systems.

Finally, I'd add that what is most important is that all widely-held opinions ''be mentioned.'' Relatively little harm is done to (say) creationism if a teacher spends ten minutes telling a class what creationism is, who believes it and why... even if he or she goes on with ten hours or days of evolution. The harm is when a class never hears ''anything'' about creationism, or, worse yet, when a creationist in the classroom is left thinking "Nobody believes this but me." And, of course, this works the other way around as well. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

P. S. '''I''' before '''E,''' 
except after '''C,''' 
or when sounded like '''A''' 
(as in ''neighbor'' and ''weigh'') 
And ''seize/inveigle/either,'' 
''Weird/leisure/neither.'' 

(You don't have to be an Einstein to be aware of other exceptions, but that jingle does cover most of the usual cases...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for that well deserved criticism. What this seems to say is scientific facts are determined by the ''credibility'' of the concensus. Is that correct? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well what do ''you'' think an acceptable definition of "Facts" is? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== On protection and revert of my edits ==

I believe I have previously pointed that the quotes are not in support of the stated position that was given with the above references in this page. Furthermore, the quotes themselves link to a page of quotes and not to the articles which is of no educational value. Could someone please remove the quotes or provide less misleading context for the quotes. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't believe you did or can demonstrate your contention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Could you please address these as an item by item failure instead of the general case? I am also having difficulty finding the full text to “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186 which is a 24 year old publication. If you could provide the full text so that it would be possible to look at the rest of it and see if what is being mentioned has been updated? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative, so you lock the page once again and revert to the stuff about evolution which has no place in this article other than to push your POV. Seems like vandalism to me...--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This is article about _astronomy_, not about Young earth creationism. Please, do not copy other theories here, link only to them and unlock this. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

To further elaborate and make it easier to track... --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Scott Tremaine ===
The quote "...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." is warning about being too enthusiastic about the predictions made earlier in the article about planet formation. The paragraph that this starts out with is "Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries."

=== Carlos Frenk ===
"We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." is about the models that are being used to simulate the formation of a galaxy which are having difficulty with recent sky surveys of galaxies with a redshift of about 2.3. Carlos Frenk is an astrophysicist who's work is supercomputer modeling of star formation and has published papers such as "Modeling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model", "The first generation of star-forming halos", "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars". In this quote he is being critical of himself and saying that he needs more data (which the article is about - better sky surveys) to work from.

=== Michael Rowan-Robinson ===
The quote "We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." is from 1983, years before the Hubble Telescope was launched and supercomputers were very limited. Astronomy has progressed significantly since then. This quote is out of date. The referenced article has yet to be found to show the complete text of the material and the context of it.

=== Commentary ===
:::I guess we will agree to disagree. Mr. Tremaine made a candid admission and given the track record of previous models one should certain be cautious about accepting Mr. Tremaine's materialistic explanation. I believe the star quote is very explicit and irrefutable. I guess we will also disagree about the third quote. I am skeptical that old universe astronomy has really progressed as seen by the 2002 and 2004 quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time). You are right, tho. Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Can you please provide a citation for the 'couple billion more to fix it'? I can't seem to find any numbers mentioned for SM1. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: In case you are still hunting, I found it for you http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/sts-103/hubble/archive/910702.html - it was about $20 million. Thats a bit less than a couple billion more. Additionaly, you have the $30 billion wrong http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php it cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit, and $230-250 million to keep running for a year (collecting data and analyzing it) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?" You cannot pick and choose quotes. Take it all, with context or none at all. Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it. The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong. Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research? The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote. In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets. Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today. In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today. Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy). Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983. Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I've been asked to come over here and say something. The quotes are informative but I do think the entry could benefit from some direct discussion of astronomy, like solar system or Milky Way-type stuff. Maybe it could be developed here first and then inserted into the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I am glad you think the quotes are informative in the YEC section. I agree with you that the article has to be developed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That is great Andy, tell conservative to stop locking the article when ever someone edits something that is against his personal beliefs.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I double-checked the quote contexts discovered by Mtur. Finding them accurate, I noted the quotes' context so they don't mislead.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==What is this trying to accomplish?==

Because velocity = distance/time, a young earth creationists wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems if one uses an ''a priori methodological naturalism'' approach to the issue:

If I am reading this right you are trying to discredit the first paragraph of "Problems for Young Earth Creationism" by saying that the approach of using v=d/t is not based on prior study or examination of science (derived by natural processes instead of supernatural processes)? I have to admit you are subtle in your assertions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 18:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where is the astronomy in this article? All I see is a big chunk of YEC stuff. How about some..oh I don't know...information about astronomy? I think I should point out once again '''NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSISM''' so why are you guys ramming it down everybody's throat?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 21:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Simplified Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition and distinction between astronomy and astrophysics ==

Here's the problem to begin with: Astronomy is more about the topological order of celestial objects rather than the physical properties and processes of those objects, which are more related to astrophysics. The problem's that the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is just schematic, for economic reasons, and maybe it's even imprecise. Remember that dictionaries are just supposed to give rough definitions of terms, but they don't give more precise explanations. Even though astronomy and astrophysics overlap, there is a clear distinction between the approaches of those two to the same objects of study. See, the second element of the compound "astronomy" is derived from "nomos", which means "order" or "rule", so astronomy is more about the topological order of objects on the celestial sphere or in three- or four-dimensional space, but astrophysics approaches the whole thing from another perspective, the physical perspective. So if you ask, for example, where the Sun is located, that's more about astronomy, but if you ask about its properties, like color, temperature, diameter or age, that's more about astrophysics. So you have to remember that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition is way too simplistic for the purposes of this page. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 23:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Removed cited material ==

In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Astronomy&diff=next&oldid=210224 this] edit, the full text of the material was cited - it was from the article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 that was quoted above. It was not commentary - it was the full context of the quote. Feel free to purchase a copy of the article and verify it for yourself. Until then, removing it as uncited junk is misleading. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:40, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== The VVYE point of view has been left out ==

I think that this article isn't nearly conservative enough. All this rubbish about science and billions of years or 6000 years. What a bunch of rubbish!! Anyone with have a brain should be certain that the whole universe was created a few hours ago!! It all just came into being just as it is now. Prove it otherwise!! You can't can you. How do you know it wasn't? Stupid scientist and stupid Bible studiers! You should have more information here on the Very Very Young Earth POV. The rest is rubbish that you all can't prove!! [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 17:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Proposed rewrite ==

I know people have been blocked for editing what you don't want to, so I wanted this okayed before I go at it. I propose a complete rewrite of this article. If you wish to have it in, I will still address the YEC point of view, and the starlight problem, but at the same time, I wish to cover such things as the history of astronomy, key names in the field, subsets of astronomy, major issues in the field, etc.. As it stands right now, this is now simply "Astronomy disagrees with YEC, therefore is invalid". [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 10:52, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia

2008-12-03T21:48:24Z

ENorman: spelling and grammar

{{essay By|Philip J. Rayment}}
[[Wikipedia]] has a policy of neutrality, the intention apparently being to minimise [[bias]].<ref name="bias">The word "bias" is here used to mean a "predisposition toward one belief before another". It is ''not'' used to mean a prejudice or an "unreasoned judgment".</ref>
Conservapedia, in contrast, has no such policy, and openly acknowledges its bias<ref name="bias" /> towards conservative ideas.
In practice, this includes accepting the [[Bible]] for what it claims to be.
Thus it is Christian and tends to be [[Young Earth creationism|young-Earth creationist]].

Conservapedia also aims to be [[accuracy|accurate]].
Many editors question how an [[encyclopedia]] which admits to having a bias can also be accurate.
This page aims to explain how the two are compatible.

== Clarifying terms ==

Before getting on to the main issue, let's clarify a couple of terms:

=== Evidence ===

Definitions of "evidence" include:
* "information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evidence Evidence] in Compact Oxford English Dictionary</ref>
* "an outward sign : indication"<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence Evidence] in Merriam Webster</ref>
* "ground for belief; that which tends to prove or disprove something<ref name="Mac">The Penguin Macquarie Dictionary</ref>

=== Proof ===

Definitions of "proof" include:
* "evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/proof?view=uk Proof] in Compact Oxford English Dictionary</ref>
* "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proof Proof] in Merriam Webster</ref>
* "Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth"<ref name="Mac" />
There are of course other definitions, such as photographic proofs and mathematical proofs, but this discussion is not concerned with those sorts of proofs.

=== The difference between the two ===

Although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, it's probably best to think of ''evidence'' as the facts that are used to try and ''prove'' something, and ''proof'' as evidence sufficient to establish something as true, as one of the definitions above says.
The key word there, though, is "sufficient".

=== How much is enough? ===

The question then arises, how much evidence is sufficient to establish something as true?
The answer depends on the situation.

==== Criminal cases ====

In a criminal court case, the charges have to be ''proven'' true ''beyond reasonable doubt''.
That is, there is still ''some'' room for doubt, but not much.
This recognises that such things can rarely (if ever) be proved beyond any doubt at all.
Even if the defendant confesses to the crime, it's still possible to consider that he's confessed to protect someone else, or has been forced to confess, for example.
It's generally not possible to remove absolutely all doubt.
But being unable to remove absolutely all doubt does not prevent society from deciding guilt in such cases, even when the consequences of doing so are considerable, such as the defendant being found guilty and executed.

==== Civil cases ====

In civil court cases the "standard of proof" is lower.
In such cases, the decision is made on the basis of which side is ''more likely'' to be true.
There are valid reasons for having a different standard, but the point to note here is that different levels of "proof" are applicable in different circumstances.

==== Science ====

In science, it is often said that nothing can ever be proved.<ref>Mathematics is different, as theorems can be proved in maths.</ref><ref>[[Karl Popper]], in particular, argued this.</ref>
For example, no matter how many tests are conducted showing that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, there remains the possibility, no matter how remote, that the next experiment might return a different result.

In that sense, the "standard of proof" for science can be said to be beyond ''all'' doubt.
But it's because there could always be ''some'' doubt, no matter how small, that science can never be said to "prove" anything.
(What it ''can'' do, is ''disprove'' something. And failure to disprove something, despite repeated attempts, is sufficient to consider the thing to be reasonably certain.)

== "Proving" God ==

<div style="border:black 1px solid; margin:5px; padding:5px; float:right; width:12em">A newspaper cartoon in the 1960s in Australia<ref>Either ''The Potts'' or ''Dad and Dave'', from memory.</ref> showed a man pointing to a television showing a photograph of Earth taken from space, and telling his elderly father that this proved that the Earth really was round, not flat. The unconvinced father replied, "I'm wise to their trick photography".</div>

Skeptics frequently argue not only that nobody has ever proved God's existence, but that such a proof is impossible because God is beyond being tested.
Such skeptics seem to be arguing for a ''scientific'' proof of God.
And indeed, in that respect, they are correct: God cannot be ''scientifically'' tested, as science can only test the ''natural'' world, whereas God is ''supernatural''.

However, such skeptics go further, and argue that there is ''no evidence'' for God's existence.
Sometimes, they appear to be using the word "evidence" as a synonym for "proof", and more specifically, for ''scientific proof'' (despite there being no such thing).

However, what such skeptics overlook is that there ''is evidence'' for God's existence.
Whether that ''evidence'' is "sufficient to establish something as true" in their minds is another matter.
Indeed, the evidence may well not convince them. And in that sense God's existence will indeed not be "proved".
But the evidence may well be enough to convince ''some people''. So for ''those'' people, God's existence ''has'' been proved.

It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence ''cannot'' be proved.
God's existence indeed ''can'' be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one.

== Wikipedia and neutrality ==

Wikipedia has a "Neutral Point of View" policy, which essentially says that Wikipedia is not to take sides in an issue, but to present both sides of an issue fairly.

In practice, however, points of view that are popular (among the active editors) tend to predominate.
Thus evolution is presented as true, and opposing views such as creation and Intelligent Design are treated as pseudo science.

The controlling editors use various arguments to support this bias.
For example, they argue that minority views should not be given undue weight.
This argument is properly used to ensure that crackpot ideas such as a hollow Earth are not presented as equally likely to be true as opposing ideas.
However, it is also used to marginalize ideas such as creation and Intelligent Design for which there is widespread support, on the grounds that the ideas don't have widespread support among scientists.

What this demonstrates, however, is that being neutral is very difficult if not impossible to achieve, and in some cases is not actually desirable.

== Conservapedia and neutrality ==

Conservapedia gets around the difficulty of achieving neutrality by not trying to be neutral.
Unlike Wikipedia, which is not neutral but claims to be, Conservapedia is not claiming to be something that it is not (in this regard at least).

But that doesn't mean that Conservapedia cannot be truthful or factual.
Taking the view that the Earth is solid, not hollow, for example, is something that is reasonable to do, on the basis that it has been proved.
That is, there exists what we consider to be sufficient evidence to be certain that the Earth is solid.

Similarly, the people in charge of Conservapedia consider there to be sufficient evidence to believe that [[God]] exists, that [[Jesus]] is God, that the Bible is true, and that evolution (in the sense of common descent) is false.

No, none of these things has been ''scientifically'' proved.
But as explained above, that is not the only sort of proof.

People with opposing views are, of course, welcome to edit Conservapedia.
And they are definitely welcome to correct errors of fact.
They are even welcome to argue that there is ''not'' sufficient evidence to consider something proven.

However, it is inappropriate to insist that Conservapedia is being unreasonably biased, is wrong to claim certainty on certain matters (such as the existence of God), and that opposing views deserve as much space.

== Encyclopedias and neutrality ==

But is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to have a bias?
As mentioned above, Wikipedia does have a bias, despite its policy of neutrality.
Similar applies to traditional encyclopedias.
Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc. all talk about evolution as though it is true, and are thus not neutral to the creation/evolution issue.

This is due to the view that predominates among those that write the encyclopedia.
The first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, written at a time before Darwin made evolution popular, and even before there had been much change to the long-held idea of Earth being 6,000 years old, gave "the age of the earth as thousands of years, and [described] the global Flood of Noah as a real historical event."<ref>Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5440/ Believe it or not—the earth is young!], 28th November, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

Conservapedia is no different.
It presents as truth what it believes to ''be'' truth.
In doing so, it is not claiming infallibility—mistakes are always possible.
But it is not being intellectually dishonest in doing so whilst at the same time claiming to be accurate, trustworthy, and factual.<ref>This is the principle. How well it works in practice, with the possibility of a given editor or editors with sufficient power pushing a particular view, is another matter.</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}