Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-28T04:23:16Z

JoshuaZ: /* Ummmm... */ on MM experiment

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

P=NP

2011-07-02T19:47:08Z

JoshuaZ: Yeah, that needs context.

Whether '''P=NP''' is an unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, the problem asks if all problems whose solutions can be checked quickly can have those solutions found quickly. More formally, a collection of yes or no questions is said to be in P if there exists a [[Turing machine]] T, an integer k and constant C such that which which will correctly answer whether the answer is yes or no, and the Turing machine will always terminate after a number of steps bounded by <math>Cn^k</math> where n is the length of the input. A problem is said to be in NP if the same holds true for a non-deterministic Turing machine. It is not hard to see that any problem in P is also in NP. It is unknown if P=NP or not. This problem is one of the seven [[Millennium problems]], for which each has a million dollar prize.

* Before consideration, a proposed solution must be published in a refereed mathematics publication of worldwide repute (or such other form as the SAB shall determine qualifies), and it must also have general acceptance in the mathematics community two years after. [http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Rules_etc/ Clay Mathematics Institute]

In August 2010, [[Vinay Deolalikar]] gave a proposed proof. MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson was so confident that the proof is wrong, he’s offered Deolalikar an additional $200,000 if he’s awarded the $1,000,000 Clay Millennium Prize for the proof.<ref>http://www.geekosystem.com/p-np-proof-vinay-deolalikar/</ref>. The current consensus is that Deolalikar's proof does not work.

== References ==

<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/ P vs NP Problem] - Clay Mathematics Institute
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=349&bpid=25616 Eight Signs A Claimed P?NP Proof Is Wrong] - ''Technology Review'' - Friday, August 13, 2010

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Rezident

2010-08-17T19:53:28Z

JoshuaZ: Undo revision 806755 by Bibleculpepper (Talk)

'''Rezident''' is a Russian intelligence term for a representative of one nation’s intelligence service who resides in another nation and directs the operations of an agent network. A resident is the equivalent of a station chief in [[CIA]] parlance. An intelligence resident may be "legal," that is, operating under a legal cover, most often as a diplomatic official, or "illegal," that is, operating without a legal cover, under an alias.

A '''Rezidentura''' is analogous to a CIA station.

==See also==
*[[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]]

[[Category:Espionage]]

Terence Tao

2010-08-15T22:40:30Z

JoshuaZ: start article

'''Terence Tao''' is a mathematician at [[UCLA]]. He has worked in many areas including analytic number theory, harmonic analysis, and representation theory. He won the [[Fields medal]] for his work in number theory including his work with [[Ben Green]] showing that there are arbitrarily long sequences of primes in arithmetic progressions.

[[Category:Mathematicians]]

P=NP

2010-08-15T22:35:56Z

JoshuaZ: cat

Fields Medal

2010-08-15T22:35:17Z

JoshuaZ:

The '''Fields Medal''', awarded every four years at the opening ceremony of the International Congress of Mathematics, is considered the highest honor a [[Mathematics|mathematician]] can receive. At each Congress, 2-4 medals are awarded, each to a mathematician under the age of 40. Recent winners include [[Grigori Perelman]] and [[Terence Tao]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.mathunion.org/medals/Fields/Prizewinners.html List of winners]
*[http://www.icm2006.org International Congress of Mathematics Conference website]

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Awards]]

Grigori Perelman

2010-08-15T22:34:00Z

JoshuaZ: more detail

[[Image:Perelman.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Grigori Perelman's facebook photo.]]
'''Grigori Perelman''' is a Russian mathematician, notable for proving the greatest unsolved problem of the 20th century, the [[Poincaré conjecture]]. Prior to that work, Perelman became known for given a much shorter proof of the [[Soul conjecture]] than prior proofs.

Perelman has been sharply critical of the organized mathematical community. He is the only person to ever turn down the prestigious [[Fields Medal|Fields medal]], and has chosen to leave mathematical work after his proof was published. He also posted his solution of the Poincare conjecture on the internet, instead of following the standard procedure of publishing in peer reviewed journals. Since then, his proof has been reviewed independently by other mathematicians and has been found to be correct. In june 2010 he rejected the [[millennium prize]], valued in one million dollars, due to his disagreements with the mathematical community.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Perelman, Grigori}}
[[Category: Russian People]]
[[Category: Mathematicians]]

Riemann hypothesis

2010-08-15T22:01:22Z

JoshuaZ: wkfy

The '''Riemann hypothesis''' states that the non-trivial zeros of the [[Riemann Zeta function]] function all have real component <math>\frac{1}{2}</math>. The conjecture was first proposed by [[Bernhard Riemann]] in 1859 and is considered by many to be one of the greatest unsolved problems in mathematics. The problem was listed as one of the seven [[Millennium problems]] by the Clay Mathematics Institute and there is a million dollar prize for its solution.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/</ref> The statement is essentially equivalent to the claim that the error term in the [[pime number theorem]] is small. Alternatively, the Riemann hypothesis can be thought of as a statement that the [[prime number|prime numbers]] are very smoothly distributed.

==References==

<References/>

[[category:complex analysis]]

Millennium problems

2010-08-15T21:58:03Z

JoshuaZ: clean up, clarify

'''Millennium problems''' are seven unsolved problems in [[mathematics]] identified around the year 2000 by the Clay Mathematics Institute as the most significant challenges known to modern mathematics. The problems were selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute which offered a million dollars for the resolution of each question. So far, only one has been solved, the [[Poincare conjecture]], by [[Grigori Perelman]] posting the solution directly on the internet rather than seeking publication by a peer-reviewed mathematical journal.

==The Millennium problems==

1. The [[Poincare conjecture]], which states that if certain algebraic structures associated with a space are equivalent to those associated with a kind of sphere, then the space itself must be that kind of sphere.

2. The [[Riemann hypothesis]], which states that a certain function investigated by Bernhard Riemann in the 19th century is only equal to zero for complex numbers with real part equal to 1/2. (The so-called trivial zeroes occur at -2, -4, etc.)

3. [[P=NP]], which states that the amount of time it takes to check a possible answer to a certain kind of problem is equal to the amount of time it takes to find that answer. In August 2010, Vinay Deolalikar posted on the internet a proposed proof that P≠NP.

4. The ''Hodge conjecture'', which identifies algebraic structures on certain kinds of complex manifolds.

5. The existence of infinitely differentiable solutions to the [[Navier-Stokes equations]], which would imply certain results about turbulence, an extremely common but not at all understood phenomenon.

6. The ''Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture'', which states there is a certain level of "simplicity" in the solutions to certain kinds of rational equations.

7. Investigation of the [[Standard Model|Yang-Mills existence and gap]]; specifically, whether Yang-Mills theory predicts particles with negative mass, and whether it contains any contradictions. Demonstrations of either negative-mass predictions or contradictions would provide clues as to how to build a more accurate theory.

[[Category:mathematics]]

P=NP

2010-08-15T21:55:39Z

JoshuaZ: Created page with 'Whether '''P=NP''' is an unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, the problem asks if all problems whose solutions can be checked quickly can have those solutions found …'

Jewish holidays

2009-10-06T15:40:14Z

JoshuaZ: wkfy

'''Jewish holidays''' are the "holy days" observed according to the [[Judaism]]. They are cycled on a [[lunar calendar]] as opposed to [[Christian]] holidays which are cycled on the solar calendar. Unlike many lunar calendars such as the [[Islam|Islamic]] calendar the Jewish calendar has leap years to keep it aligned with the solar year.

The following are all the main holidays traditionally observed on the |Jewish calendar:

== Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Rosh Hashanah]]''' - 1-2 Tishrei - Rosh Ha-Shanah is the Jewish new year and day of judgement, in which [[God]] judges each person individually according to their deeds, and makes a decree for the following year. The holiday is characterized by the special mitzvah of blowing the shofar. The better people are "inscribed in the [[Book of Life]]."
* '''[[Yom Kippur]]''' ('''Day of Atonement''') - 10 Tishrei - Yom Kippur is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year. Its central theme is atonement and reconciliation. Eating, drinking, bathing, anointing with oil, and marital relations are prohibited. Fasting begins at sundown, and ends after nightfall the following day. Yom Kippur services begin with the prayer known as "Kol Nidrei", which must be recited before sunset.
* '''[[Sukkot]]''' - 15-21 Tishrei - Sukkot is a 7-day festival, also known as the Feast of Booths, the Feast of Tabernacles, or just Tabernacles. It is one of the three pilgrimage festivals mentioned in the Bible. The word sukkot is the plural of the Hebrew word sukkah, meaning booth. Jews are commanded to "dwell" in booths during the holiday. This generally means taking meals, but some sleep in the sukkah as well. There are specific rules for constructing a sukkah. The seventh day of the holiday is called Hoshanah Rabbah.
* '''Simchat Torah''' - 22 (23) Tishrei - Simchat Torah means "rejoicing with the Torah". It actually refers to a special ceremony which takes place on the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. This holiday immediately follows the conclusion of the holiday of Sukkot. In Israel, Shemini Atzeret is one day long and includes the celebration of Simchat Torah. Outside Israel, Shemini Atzeret is two days long and Simchat Torah is observed on the second day, which is often referred to by the name of the ceremony. The last portion of the Torah is read, completing the annual cycle, followed by the first chapter of Genesis. Services are especially joyous, and all attendees, young and old, are involved.
* '''[[Pesach]]''' ('''[[Passover]]''') - 14-22 Nisan - Pesach (Passover) commemorates the liberation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. No leavened food is eaten during the week of Pesach, in commemoration of the fact that the Jews left Egypt so quickly that their bread did not have enough time to rise.
* '''Shavuot''' - 6, 7 Sivan - Shavuot, The Feast of Weeks is one of the three pilgrim festivals (Shalosh regalim) ordained in the Torah, Shavuot marks the end of the counting of the Omer, the period between Passover and Shavuot. According to Rabbinic tradition, the [[Ten Commandments]] were given on this day. During this holiday the Torah portion containing the [[Ten Commandments]] is read in the synagogue, and the biblical Book of Ruth is read as well. It is traditional to eat dairy meals during Shavuot.
* '''Shabbat''' ('''Shabbas''') - Every seventh day - Jewish law accords the Sabbath the status of a holiday. Jews celebrate a ''Shabbat'', a day of rest, on the seventh day of each week. Jewish law defines a day as ending at nightfall, which is when the next day then begins. Thus, ''Shabbat'' begins at sundown Friday night, and ends at nightfall Saturday night.
:In many ways Jewish law gives ''Shabbat'' the status of being the most important holy day in the Jewish calendar.
:*It is the first holiday mentioned in the ''[[Tanakh]]'' (Hebrew Bible), and [[God]] was the first one to observe it.
:*The Jewish services treats the Sabbath as a bride and queen (along with God the groom).
:*The [[Torah]] reading on the Sabbath has more sections of Torah readings than on Yom Kippur, the most of any Jewish holiday.
:*There is a tradition that the [[Messiah]] will come if every Jew observes the Sabbath twice in a row. Additionally, Orthodox Jews observe 39 restrictions on the Sabbath. These include not cooking, lighting fires (includes using electricity), extinguishing fires, writing, cutting, etc.
* '''[[Purim]]''' - 14 Adar (2 Adar leap year) - Purim commemorates the events that took place in the Book of Esther. It is celebrated by reading or acting out the story of Esther, and by making disparaging noises at every mention of Haman (the antagonist)'s name. This is by far more fun than Hanukkah.

== Non-Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Chanukah]]''' - 25 Kislev - 2, 3 Tevet - The story of Hanukkah is preserved in the books of the First and Second Maccabees. These books are not part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), they are apocryphal books instead. The miracle of the one-day supply of oil miraculously lasting eight days is first described in the [[Talmud]].
* '''[[Tu Bishva]]t''' - 15 Shevat - Tu Bishvat is the new year for trees. According to the Mishnah, it marks the day from which fruit tithes are counted each year, and marks the timepoint from which the Biblical prohibition on eating the first three years of fruit and the requirement to bring the fourth year fruit to the Temple in Jerusalem were counted. In modern times, it is celebrated by eating various fruits and nuts associated with the Land of [[Israel]].

[[Category:Holidays]][[Category:Judaism]]

Sukkot

2009-10-06T03:11:20Z

JoshuaZ: we should have an article on this

'''Sukkot''' is a Jewish holiday which takes place in the Hebrew month of [[Tishrei]]. The start of Sukkot is generally in September or October on the Gregorian calendar. The holiday is celebrated for seven days at the end of which is the holiday of [[Shimini Atzeret]] which lasts for one day in Israel and two days outside Israel. The main aspect of sukkot are living in a tent-like structure called a "sukkah" (the plural of sukkah is sukkot which gives rise to the holiday's name).

==Sukkah==

A sukkah is tent-like structure. The details as to what constitutes a sukkah are not described in detail in the Bible but are discussed in the eponymous tractate of Talmud. The roof of a sukkah must be made from plant matter that has not been substantially altered. Jews often build sukkot after [[Yom Kippur]] but before the holiday of Sukkot has begun. Traditionally, the main obligations are to eat and sleep in the sukka. This is based on the Biblical passage in Leviticus 23:42 to dwell in a sukka for seven days.

==Other aspects==

The holiday of Sukkot has a variety of other aspects.

=== The Four Species ===

During the holiday four special plants (known as The Four Species) are taken together and waved in a ritual fashion. The four species are composed of the fruit of a citron, leaves from a willow, leaves from a myrtle, and a section of a date palm. The Four Species are often called collectively by either just the Hebrew word for the date palm (a Lulav) or together with the term for the citron (which is called an Etrog).

=== The first day ===

The Bible prohibits work on the first day of Sukkot. For historical reasons, this is extended to the first two days outside Israel. This prohibition is most relevant to [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] and [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] but not the other movements in that keeping the traditional work prohibitions is much less common among them. There are also associated liturgical differences that are correspondingly only apply to the first day in Israel and to the first two days outside Israel. Reform Jews outside Israel.

=== Ancient times ===

In ancient times, when the [[Temple]] stood, many sacrifices were offered on Sukkot. Traditionally, seventy sacrifices were offered to correspond to the seventy nations of the world. In Orthodox Jews and some Conservative Jews remember these sacrifices by reciting the Biblical section in Numbers which detail the sacrifices.

[[Category:Holidays]]
[[Category:Judaism]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-06T02:11:56Z

JoshuaZ: /* Names of God */ reply

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible ''translation'' at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

:I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this ''is'' really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

:It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation ''based on a political agenda''. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to ''remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations'', and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words|powerful new conservative insights]] that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally [[Essay:Conservapedia's_Law|superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV]]. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== CBP in blogs ==
Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Please do respond without worrying about me. I have an open mind and am learning from your responses.

:Note that liberals will sometimes make arguments they do not accept themselves in order to try to deter Christians or conservatives or others. For example, one liberal insisted here that we should shut down this site on Sundays as the Sabbath, a viewpoint he did not accept himself but perhaps thought it would disrupt us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Names of God ==

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for your insight, Joshua. I have an open mind about it. But the use of different Hebrew words does not automatically imply that different English words are the best translations.

:I'm curious, Joshua: are you drawing upon childhood knowledge for your insight? As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. Once someone buys into evolution, he typically refuses to learns anything about the Bible again, despite its undisputed role as the most influential book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Childhoold knowledge. Anyone who reads the Bible in the original Hebrew learns this as one of the first things about the text. I disagree with your claims about the Bible, "evolutionists" and "liberal blogs" but that's an argument that would be a bit off topic. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I predicted that perfectly, didn't I? Lucky guess on my part? Nope. Show me an evolutionist, and I'll show you someone who thinks of himself as well-read and yet never, ever reads the Bible. The correlation between belief in evolution and avoidance of the Bible (despite claiming to be well-read) is nearly a perfect 100%. Indeed, the correlation is so perfect that one could almost define an evolutionist as an educated person who never reads the Bible. Indeed, I'll add that to the entry here.

::: If evolution were not simply an anti-religious belief system, then that correlation would not be so high. The correlation is nowhere near that high for other scientific theories, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Not a lucky guess since again like most good little Jewish boys I started studying the text from a young age. As for not reading the Bible, I'm scheduled to give the student sermon three weeks from now at Friday night services in three weeks (the corresponding section for that week is the story of Noah) and I'm currently in the process of brushing up on the section dealing with the offerings for [[Sukkot]] (in Numbers 29) since it is thematically relevant (being the middle of the holiday). In any event, the relevant point I was trying to make was about the names. That seems to have been done. (Incidentally, if you want a good resource for looking at various versions of the Biblical texts, http://unbound.biola.edu/ is really helpful). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== I don't get the criticisms of this project ==

Where were these critics when "the Message" "translation" came out? Where were they when the NIV people announced a new, more liberal version in the works? The double-standard is obvious. A liberal version of the Bible? "Ho-hum." Conservative version? "WHAT??? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!" [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 18:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. The number one reason why most people are [[liberal]]s is so that they can cling to a [[double standard]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::These people were silent, of course, when others created a "gender-neutral" Bible, a "green" Bible, and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not). No problem with those versions. Evangelicals recently complained about the proposed TNIV, but were either ignored or ridiculed for their objections. It is, of course, because these people agree with those versions. They have no issue with people on their side of the political, social and moral spectrum creating those Bibles. People have been creating liberalized Bibles for decades, possibly even centuries, but the minute someone proposes a conservative Bible, the left blows their collective top. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 19:40, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Pime number theorem

2009-10-06T01:27:04Z

JoshuaZ: Redirected page to Prime Number Theorem

#REDIRECT[[Prime Number Theorem]]

User:JoshuaZ

2009-10-06T01:26:44Z

JoshuaZ: update

I'm Joshua Zelinsky, a long time contributor to [[Wikipedia]] and a variety of other wiki projects. My user page can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ here]. I am not "conservative" by most definitions of the word, but thought that I might be able to help out here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:26, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-06T01:24:46Z

JoshuaZ: /* Names of God */ reply

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible ''translation'' at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

:I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this ''is'' really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

:It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation ''based on a political agenda''. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to ''remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations'', and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words|powerful new conservative insights]] that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally [[Essay:Conservapedia's_Law|superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV]]. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== CBP in blogs ==
Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Please do respond without worrying about me. I have an open mind and am learning from your responses.

:Note that liberals will sometimes make arguments they do not accept themselves in order to try to deter Christians or conservatives or others. For example, one liberal insisted here that we should shut down this site on Sundays as the Sabbath, a viewpoint he did not accept himself but perhaps thought it would disrupt us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Names of God ==

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for your insight, Joshua. I have an open mind about it. But the use of different Hebrew words does not automatically imply that different English words are the best translations.

:I'm curious, Joshua: are you drawing upon childhood knowledge for your insight? As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. Once someone buys into evolution, he typically refuses to learns anything about the Bible again, despite its undisputed role as the most influential book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Childhoold knowledge. Anyone who reads the Bible in the original Hebrew learns this as one of the first things about the text. I disagree with your claims about the Bible, "evolutionists" and "liberal blogs" but that's an argument that would be a bit off topic. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== I don't get the criticisms of this project ==

Where were these critics when "the Message" "translation" came out? Where were they when the NIV people announced a new, more liberal version in the works? The double-standard is obvious. A liberal version of the Bible? "Ho-hum." Conservative version? "WHAT??? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!" [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 18:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. The number one reason why most people are [[liberal]]s is so that they can cling to a [[double standard]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::These people were silent, of course, when others created a "gender-neutral" Bible, a "green" Bible, and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not). No problem with those versions. Evangelicals recently complained about the proposed TNIV, but were either ignored or ridiculed for their objections. It is, of course, because these people agree with those versions. They have no issue with people on their side of the political, social and moral spectrum creating those Bibles. People have been creating liberalized Bibles for decades, possibly even centuries, but the minute someone proposes a conservative Bible, the left blows their collective top. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 19:40, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Riemann hypothesis

2009-10-05T18:41:40Z

JoshuaZ: smooth distribution

The '''Riemann hypothesis''' states that the non-trivial zeros of the [[Riemann Zeta function]] function all have real component <math>\frac{1}{2}</math>. The conjecture was first proposed by [[Bernhard Riemann]] in 1859 and is considered by many to be one of the greatest unsolved problems in mathematics. The problem was listed as one of the seven Millennium problems by the Clay Mathematics Institute and there is a million dollar prize for its solution.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/</ref> The statement is essentially equivalent to the claim that the error term in the [[pime number theorem]] is small. Alternatively, the Riemann hypothesis can be thought of as a statement that the [[prime number|prime numbers]] are very smoothly distributed.

==References==

<References/>

[[category:complex analysis]]

Riemann hypothesis

2009-10-05T18:40:06Z

JoshuaZ:

The '''Riemann hypothesis''' states that the non-trivial zeros of the [[Riemann Zeta function]] function all have real component <math>\frac{1}{2}</math>. The conjecture was first proposed by [[Bernhard Riemann]] in 1859 and is considered by many to be one of the greatest unsolved problems in mathematics. The problem was listed as one of the seven Millennium problems by the Clay Mathematics Institute and there is a million dollar prize for its solution.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/</ref> The statement is essentially equivalent to the claim that the error term in the [[pime number theorem]] is small.

==References==

<References/>

[[category:complex analysis]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-05T18:35:45Z

JoshuaZ: /* Names of God */ new section

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible ''translation'' at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

:I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this ''is'' really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

:It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation ''based on a political agenda''. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to ''remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations'', and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words|powerful new conservative insights]] that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally [[Essay:Conservapedia's_Law|superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV]]. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== CBP in blogs ==
Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Names of God ==

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Prime number

2009-04-23T17:58:53Z

JoshuaZ: /* Flaw in proof */ comment

== Primality testing - Problems with the number 4 ==

When testing whether a number ''N'' is divisible by ''s'', using values of ''s'' from 2 to ''N'' - 1, when ''N'' is 4, the method correctly determines that 4 is not prime, because it is divisible by 2. This example is in the C programming language.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < N - 1; ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

However, when using values of ''m'' from 2 to the square root of ''n'', when ''n'' is 4, an error can occur. Since 2 is the square root of 4, the test range is 2 to 2, and, if the range is exclusive, as in a for-loop, the whole test is skipped, and 4 is incorrectly determined to be a prime number.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < sqrt(N); ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Isaac4given|Isaac4given]] 11:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised that 9 worked. Try.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s <= sqrt(N); ++s) { // less than or equal to catch perfect squares
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Flaw in proof ==

"It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem. If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1. The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1)." This argument doesn't work. 510511 = 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 + 1, but it's not prime. [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 13:21, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:You misunderstand the argument. Since you multiplied only the first 7 primes to get 510510, your hypothesis (the thing to be contradicted in this proof by contradiction) is that those 7 numbers constitute the complete finite set of primes. And in fact, 510511 is not divisible by any of them. Therefore they are not the complete set of primes. And the same argument can be made for any hypothesized finite set. Therefore, no finite set can be the complete set of primes. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:15, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:: This is only sort of correct. To do it that way makes a proof by contradiction when you would otherwise have a constructive proof. This is suboptimal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:58, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why Mathematicians Prefer the Alternative Definition==
Because mathematician make a distinction between irreducible elements (p irred. <=> (a|p => a unit or a=p)) and prime elements (p prime <=> (for all a,b: p|ab => p|a or p|b). While these two properties coincide on <math>\mathbf{Z}</math>, they differ e.g., on <math>\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]</math>: here 3 is irreducible, but not a prime, as <math>21 = 3 \cdot 7 = (1 + 2 \sqrt{-5})(1 - 2 \sqrt{-5})</math> --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== NP Complete ==

Please fix the incorrect statement about the NP-completeness of prime factorization. In fact, prime factorization is ''known'' not to be in NPC unless P=NP. --[[User:DiogenesTonne|DiogenesTonne]] 17:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Since this article is currently protected... ==

You can't have an article on primes that discusses primality testing and doesn't mention Agrawal's algorithm. There needs to be a mention of the AKS test which allows primality testing in polynomial time. This was a big deal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:49, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Suggested addition: In 2002 Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena constructed an algorithm that determined primality in polynomial time. This algorithm was based off of a generalization of Fermat's Little Theoren.[http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/manindra/algebra/primality_v6.pdf]

How's that for starters? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:50, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Prime number

2009-04-23T16:50:25Z

JoshuaZ: /* Since this article is currently protected... */ poke?

== Primality testing - Problems with the number 4 ==

When testing whether a number ''N'' is divisible by ''s'', using values of ''s'' from 2 to ''N'' - 1, when ''N'' is 4, the method correctly determines that 4 is not prime, because it is divisible by 2. This example is in the C programming language.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < N - 1; ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

However, when using values of ''m'' from 2 to the square root of ''n'', when ''n'' is 4, an error can occur. Since 2 is the square root of 4, the test range is 2 to 2, and, if the range is exclusive, as in a for-loop, the whole test is skipped, and 4 is incorrectly determined to be a prime number.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < sqrt(N); ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Isaac4given|Isaac4given]] 11:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised that 9 worked. Try.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s <= sqrt(N); ++s) { // less than or equal to catch perfect squares
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Flaw in proof ==

"It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem. If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1. The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1)." This argument doesn't work. 510511 = 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 + 1, but it's not prime. [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 13:21, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:You misunderstand the argument. Since you multiplied only the first 7 primes to get 510510, your hypothesis (the thing to be contradicted in this proof by contradiction) is that those 7 numbers constitute the complete finite set of primes. And in fact, 510511 is not divisible by any of them. Therefore they are not the complete set of primes. And the same argument can be made for any hypothesized finite set. Therefore, no finite set can be the complete set of primes. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:15, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Why Mathematicians Prefer the Alternative Definition==
Because mathematician make a distinction between irreducible elements (p irred. <=> (a|p => a unit or a=p)) and prime elements (p prime <=> (for all a,b: p|ab => p|a or p|b). While these two properties coincide on <math>\mathbf{Z}</math>, they differ e.g., on <math>\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]</math>: here 3 is irreducible, but not a prime, as <math>21 = 3 \cdot 7 = (1 + 2 \sqrt{-5})(1 - 2 \sqrt{-5})</math> --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== NP Complete ==

Please fix the incorrect statement about the NP-completeness of prime factorization. In fact, prime factorization is ''known'' not to be in NPC unless P=NP. --[[User:DiogenesTonne|DiogenesTonne]] 17:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Since this article is currently protected... ==

You can't have an article on primes that discusses primality testing and doesn't mention Agrawal's algorithm. There needs to be a mention of the AKS test which allows primality testing in polynomial time. This was a big deal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:49, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Suggested addition: In 2002 Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena constructed an algorithm that determined primality in polynomial time. This algorithm was based off of a generalization of Fermat's Little Theoren.[http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/manindra/algebra/primality_v6.pdf]

How's that for starters? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:50, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Prime number

2009-04-23T00:49:47Z

JoshuaZ: /* Since this article is currently protected... */ new section

== Primality testing - Problems with the number 4 ==

When testing whether a number ''N'' is divisible by ''s'', using values of ''s'' from 2 to ''N'' - 1, when ''N'' is 4, the method correctly determines that 4 is not prime, because it is divisible by 2. This example is in the C programming language.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < N - 1; ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

However, when using values of ''m'' from 2 to the square root of ''n'', when ''n'' is 4, an error can occur. Since 2 is the square root of 4, the test range is 2 to 2, and, if the range is exclusive, as in a for-loop, the whole test is skipped, and 4 is incorrectly determined to be a prime number.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < sqrt(N); ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Isaac4given|Isaac4given]] 11:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised that 9 worked. Try.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s <= sqrt(N); ++s) { // less than or equal to catch perfect squares
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Flaw in proof ==

"It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem. If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1. The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1)." This argument doesn't work. 510511 = 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 + 1, but it's not prime. [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 13:21, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:You misunderstand the argument. Since you multiplied only the first 7 primes to get 510510, your hypothesis (the thing to be contradicted in this proof by contradiction) is that those 7 numbers constitute the complete finite set of primes. And in fact, 510511 is not divisible by any of them. Therefore they are not the complete set of primes. And the same argument can be made for any hypothesized finite set. Therefore, no finite set can be the complete set of primes. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:15, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Why Mathematicians Prefer the Alternative Definition==
Because mathematician make a distinction between irreducible elements (p irred. <=> (a|p => a unit or a=p)) and prime elements (p prime <=> (for all a,b: p|ab => p|a or p|b). While these two properties coincide on <math>\mathbf{Z}</math>, they differ e.g., on <math>\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]</math>: here 3 is irreducible, but not a prime, as <math>21 = 3 \cdot 7 = (1 + 2 \sqrt{-5})(1 - 2 \sqrt{-5})</math> --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== NP Complete ==

Please fix the incorrect statement about the NP-completeness of prime factorization. In fact, prime factorization is ''known'' not to be in NPC unless P=NP. --[[User:DiogenesTonne|DiogenesTonne]] 17:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Since this article is currently protected... ==

You can't have an article on primes that discusses primality testing and doesn't mention Agrawal's algorithm. There needs to be a mention of the AKS test which allows primality testing in polynomial time. This was a big deal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:49, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

User talk:Rhodes

2009-03-22T17:51:59Z

JoshuaZ: about xkcd

The proper style for "xkcd" is all lower case. See [http://xkcd.com/about/ here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:51, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Karl Popper

2009-02-25T03:27:33Z

JoshuaZ: /* Politics */

[[Image:Image014.jpg|right|frame]]
Sir '''Karl Popper''' (1902-1994) was an [[Austrian]]-born [[philosopher]] of science widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century,<ref>{{hnb|Stanford|2006}}</ref> who influenced the philosophy of science and politics.

==Philosophy of Science ==
=== Falsifiability ===

In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it. A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory. For example, Newton's law of gravity is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the Law of Gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it.

While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific. Whilst it is commonly stated that Popper did not believe Evolutionary Theory to be a scientific theory, since he argued that it was tautological in 'Unended Quest' (1976), he in fact withdrew his criticism in 'Dialectica' (32:344-346), stating;

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation"

=== Universal Laws ===

The falsifiability criterion arose as a result of Popper's analysis of the logic of universal laws. Universal laws have a logical structure which precludes certain existential statements : universal laws are a negation of an existential proposition. Popper's example was that of the color of swans. The universal statement "all swans are white" implies the negative existential statement "no swans of a color other than white exist". To verify the negative existential we would need to trawl through the universe to ensure that no non-white swan existed anywhere in time or space. Conversely, if we saw just one black swan we could confirm the existential statement "black swans exist" and refute the universal "all swans are white".

Popper was uncompromising in his rejection of any attempt to take confirming instances as increasing the legitimacy, likelihood, reasonableness or probability of the universal statement. No matter how many white swans you see you are no more able to assume that all swans are white than if you had seen just the one white swan. The ease with which “verifying” instances can be found led Popper to the conclusion that an attempted verification of a universal law is worse than useless: to be science universal laws must be capable of being put to the test, to be falsifiable.

==Politics==
A refugee from Austria after the rise of [[Nazism]], Popper dedicated the war years to the study of the roots of totalitarian thought. The “Open Society and its Enemies” analysed the contribution, as he saw it, of [[Plato]], [[Hegel]] and [[Marx]] to an anti-rational tribalistic “closed society”. The closed society was, for Popper, marked by a lack of criticism of established ideas (established societal norms being treated not as societal norms but as “taboo” or “the natural order”) together with a collectivism that subjected the individual to the group goal. Popper also saw “historicist” views and underpinning much of the thought behind the “closed” society. “Historicism”, dealt with in “The Poverty of Historicism” and criticised throughout the “Open Society”, both sees historical laws of development and bases much of its morality on these supposed laws.

In contrast the concept of the "Open Society" reflects Popper's concept of science. Just as there is no method for generating a true description of a Universal Law there is no method for generating perfect (Utopian) social laws, norms or governmental actions. Society will always be in a state of less than perfection and may only improve by changing what was previously thought to be the best course of action. As society can only improve by self-criticism it follows that criticism must not be restricted.

The view is criticised by those who see positive value in tradition, ritual and shared belief ''per se''. (A small scale example is the family Christmas tradition that most families have. They are usually dogmatically held and are of value precisely because they are dogmatically held: the shared dogma helps bind the family together). The view is also criticised by those who suspect our ability to decide on the full facts when looking at a social institution. All actions have unintended, unknown, consequences. We may simply not be aware of some functions of the particular institution, tradition or social norm being criticised. Avoiding rejection of institutions with good, but unknown, consequences necessitates some level of dogma to protect them.<ref>See, for example, A. O'Hear "The Open Society Revisted" in P.Catton and G MacDonald (eds.) ''Karl Popper: Critical Appraisels''. Routledge. Abingdon. 2004 </ref>

Popper's views on politics cannot be placed along the traditional left/right axis. Bryan Magee, a liberal politician (MP for the British Labour Party and the British Social Democratic Party) who knew Popper personally, reflected that Popper began adult life an "emotionally committed social democrat" and moved, with middle age, progressively to the right. Magee reflected that the key insights given by Popper, the method of robustly critising our own views, "can be adopted by anyone committed to democratic politics, from the extreme democratic left to the extreme democratic right"<ref>B. Magee "What Use is Popper to a Politician" in A. O'Hear (ed.) ''Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. page 266.</ref>

==Critical Rationalism==
In "The Open Society and its Enemies" Popper put forward the concept of ''Critical Rationalism'' in opposition to the ''Authoritarian'' rationalism of previous philosophers. Previous philosphers had assumed a central role of justification in knowledge, whilst Popper denied the very possibility of justification arguing that any attempt to establish a foundation for knowledge led to a regress ending in "faith" (in the sense of a belief held without conclusive reasons that is held to be uncriticisable). Popper characterised rationality not as a methodology of formulating and verifying proposition but as a constant criticism of existing beliefs.

In "The Open Society and its Enemies" Popper declared his "faith" in reason (as characterised by criticism). A faith that led him to reject any other epistemological authority. His student, W. W. Bartley III went further ("The Retreat to Comittment") and rejected the need to have faith in reason. For Bartley ''all'' propositions where criticisable, even the propositions of basic logic themselves, a position he termed "Comprehensively Critical Rationalism".

Another pupil of Popper's, David W. Miller rejects not only dogma, which can be characterised as support for propositions that should not be questioned but the very concept of "support".

<blockquote>
"there exist no grounds whatever, conclusive or inconclusive, for anything that we know"[http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625]
</blockquote>

The view is criticised by those who hold that knowledge must have foundations, basic beliefs that are both true and justified, from which other propositions are derived.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Popper, Karl}}

[[Category:Philosophers]]

== Sources ==

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Stanford
| Given = Encyclopedia of Philosophy
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-10-09
| Title = Karl Popper
| Publisher = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
| URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
}} Retrived on 2007-05-14

Jewish holidays

2008-12-18T19:57:33Z

JoshuaZ:

'''Jewish holidays''' are the "holy days" observed according to the [[Judaism]]. They are cycled on a [[lunar calendar]] as opposed to [[Christian]] holidays which are cycled on the solar calendar. Unlike many lunar calendars such as the [[Islam|Islamic]] calendar the Jewish calendar has leap years to keep it aligned with the solar year.

The following are all the main holidays traditionally observed on the |Jewish calendar:

== Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Rosh Hashanah]]''' - 1-2 Tishrei - Rosh Ha-Shanah is the Jewish new year and day of judgement, in which [[God]] judges each person individually according to their deeds, and makes a decree for the following year. The holiday is characterized by the special mitzvah of blowing the shofar. The better people are "inscribed in the [[Book of Life]]."
* '''[[Yom Kippur]]''' ('''Day of Atonement''') - 10 Tishrei - Yom Kippur is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year. Its central theme is atonement and reconciliation. Eating, drinking, bathing, anointing with oil, and marital relations are prohibited. Fasting begins at sundown, and ends after nightfall the following day. Yom Kippur services begin with the prayer known as "Kol Nidrei", which must be recited before sunset.
* '''Sukkot''' - 15-21 Tishrei - Sukkot is a 7-day festival, also known as the Feast of Booths, the Feast of Tabernacles, or just Tabernacles. It is one of the three pilgrimage festivals mentioned in the Bible. The word sukkot is the plural of the Hebrew word sukkah, meaning booth. Jews are commanded to "dwell" in booths during the holiday. This generally means taking meals, but some sleep in the sukkah as well. There are specific rules for constructing a sukkah. The seventh day of the holiday is called Hoshanah Rabbah.
* '''Simchat Torah''' - 22 (23) Tishrei - Simchat Torah means "rejoicing with the Torah". It actually refers to a special ceremony which takes place on the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. This holiday immediately follows the conclusion of the holiday of Sukkot. In Israel, Shemini Atzeret is one day long and includes the celebration of Simchat Torah. Outside Israel, Shemini Atzeret is two days long and Simchat Torah is observed on the second day, which is often referred to by the name of the ceremony. The last portion of the Torah is read, completing the annual cycle, followed by the first chapter of Genesis. Services are especially joyous, and all attendees, young and old, are involved.
* '''[[Pesach]]''' ('''[[Passover]]''') - 14-22 Nisan - Pesach (Passover) commemorates the liberation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. No leavened food is eaten during the week of Pesach, in commemoration of the fact that the Jews left Egypt so quickly that their bread did not have enough time to rise.
* '''Shavuot''' - 6, 7 Sivan - Shavuot, The Feast of Weeks is one of the three pilgrim festivals (Shalosh regalim) ordained in the Torah, Shavuot marks the end of the counting of the Omer, the period between Passover and Shavuot. According to Rabbinic tradition, the [[Ten Commandments]] were given on this day. During this holiday the Torah portion containing the [[Ten Commandments]] is read in the synagogue, and the biblical Book of Ruth is read as well. It is traditional to eat dairy meals during Shavuot.
* '''Shabbat''' ('''Shabbas''') - Every seventh day - Jewish law accords the Sabbath the status of a holiday. Jews celebrate a ''Shabbat'', a day of rest, on the seventh day of each week. Jewish law defines a day as ending at nightfall, which is when the next day then begins. Thus, ''Shabbat'' begins at sundown Friday night, and ends at nightfall Saturday night.
:In many ways Jewish law gives ''Shabbat'' the status of being the most important holy day in the Jewish calendar.
:*It is the first holiday mentioned in the ''[[Tanakh]]'' (Hebrew Bible), and [[God]] was the first one to observe it.
:*The Jewish services treats the Sabbath as a bride and queen (along with God the groom).
:*The [[Torah]] reading on the Sabbath has more sections of Torah readings than on Yom Kippur, the most of any Jewish holiday.
:*There is a tradition that the [[Messiah]] will come if every Jew observes the Sabbath twice in a row. Additionally, Orthodox Jews observe 39 restrictions on the Sabbath. These include not cooking, lighting fires (includes using electricity), extinguishing fires, writing, cutting, etc.
* '''[[Purim]]''' - 14 Adar (2 Adar leap year) - Purim commemorates the events that took place in the Book of Esther. It is celebrated by reading or acting out the story of Esther, and by making disparaging noises at every mention of Haman (the antagonist)'s name. This is by far more fun than Hanukkah.

== Non-Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Chanukah]]''' - 25 Kislev - 2, 3 Tevet - The story of Hanukkah is preserved in the books of the First and Second Maccabees. These books are not part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), they are apocryphal books instead. The miracle of the one-day supply of oil miraculously lasting eight days is first described in the [[Talmud]].
* '''[[Tu Bishva]]t''' - 15 Shevat - Tu Bishvat is the new year for trees. According to the Mishnah, it marks the day from which fruit tithes are counted each year, and marks the timepoint from which the Biblical prohibition on eating the first three years of fruit and the requirement to bring the fourth year fruit to the Temple in Jerusalem were counted. In modern times, it is celebrated by eating various fruits and nuts associated with the Land of [[Israel]].

[[Category:Holidays]][[Category:Judaism]]

Talk:Jewish holidays

2008-12-18T19:55:37Z

JoshuaZ: Biblical v. Non-Biblical

== Biblical v. Non-Biblical ==

I've fixed some of them here but the distinction in general is somewhat misleading; Judaism doesn't make such a division. Moreover, the line isn't always clear. For example, Simchat Torah occurs on the second day of Shimini Atzeret outside Israel and on the only day of Shimini Atzeret in Israel. But Simchat Torah itself is not anywhere in the Bible. Simchat Torah as a separate holiday is pretty late and having two days of Shimini Atzeret outside Israel is itself not in Tanach. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Jewish holidays

2008-12-18T19:35:57Z

JoshuaZ: Purim is in Tanach.

'''Jewish holidays''' are the "holy days" observed according to the Jewish religion. They are cycled on a [[lunar calendar]] as opposed to [[Christian]] holidays which are cycled on the solar calendar.

The following are all the main holidays traditionally observed on the [[Judaism|Jewish]] calendar:

== Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Rosh Hashanah]]''' - 1-2 Tishrei - Rosh Ha-Shanah is the Jewish new year and day of judgement, in which [[God]] judges each person individually according to their deeds, and makes a decree for the following year. The holiday is characterized by the special mitzvah of blowing the shofar. The better people are "inscribed in the [[Book of Life]]."
* '''[[Yom Kippur]]''' ('''Day of Atonement''') - 10 Tishrei - Yom Kippur is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year. Its central theme is atonement and reconciliation. Eating, drinking, bathing, anointing with oil, and marital relations are prohibited. Fasting begins at sundown, and ends after nightfall the following day. Yom Kippur services begin with the prayer known as "Kol Nidrei", which must be recited before sunset.
* '''Sukkot''' - 15-21 Tishrei - Sukkot is a 7-day festival, also known as the Feast of Booths, the Feast of Tabernacles, or just Tabernacles. It is one of the three pilgrimage festivals mentioned in the Bible. The word sukkot is the plural of the Hebrew word sukkah, meaning booth. Jews are commanded to "dwell" in booths during the holiday. This generally means taking meals, but some sleep in the sukkah as well. There are specific rules for constructing a sukkah. The seventh day of the holiday is called Hoshanah Rabbah.
* '''Simchat Torah''' - 22 (23) Tishrei - Simchat Torah means "rejoicing with the Torah". It actually refers to a special ceremony which takes place on the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. This holiday immediately follows the conclusion of the holiday of Sukkot. In Israel, Shemini Atzeret is one day long and includes the celebration of Simchat Torah. Outside Israel, Shemini Atzeret is two days long and Simchat Torah is observed on the second day, which is often referred to by the name of the ceremony. The last portion of the Torah is read, completing the annual cycle, followed by the first chapter of Genesis. Services are especially joyous, and all attendees, young and old, are involved.
* '''[[Pesach]]''' ('''[[Passover]]''') - 14-22 Nisan - Pesach (Passover) commemorates the liberation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. No leavened food is eaten during the week of Pesach, in commemoration of the fact that the Jews left Egypt so quickly that their bread did not have enough time to rise.
* '''Shavuot''' - 6, 7 Sivan - Shavuot, The Feast of Weeks is one of the three pilgrim festivals (Shalosh regalim) ordained in the Torah, Shavuot marks the end of the counting of the Omer, the period between Passover and Shavuot. According to Rabbinic tradition, the [[Ten Commandments]] were given on this day. During this holiday the Torah portion containing the [[Ten Commandments]] is read in the synagogue, and the biblical Book of Ruth is read as well. It is traditional to eat dairy meals during Shavuot.
* '''Shabbat''' ('''Shabbas''') - Every seventh day - Jewish law accords the Sabbath the status of a holiday. Jews celebrate a ''Shabbat'', a day of rest, on the seventh day of each week. Jewish law defines a day as ending at nightfall, which is when the next day then begins. Thus, ''Shabbat'' begins at sundown Friday night, and ends at nightfall Saturday night.
:In many ways Jewish law gives ''Shabbat'' the status of being the most important holy day in the Jewish calendar.
:*It is the first holiday mentioned in the ''[[Tanakh]]'' (Hebrew Bible), and [[God]] was the first one to observe it.
:*The Jewish services treats the Sabbath as a bride and queen (along with God the groom).
:*The [[Torah]] reading on the Sabbath has more sections of Torah readings than on Yom Kippur, the most of any Jewish holiday.
:*There is a tradition that the [[Messiah]] will come if every Jew observes the Sabbath twice in a row. Additionally, Orthodox Jews observe 39 restrictions on the Sabbath. These include not cooking, lighting fires (includes using electricity), extinguishing fires, writing, cutting, etc.
* '''[[Purim]]''' - 14 Adar (2 Adar leap year) - Purim commemorates the events that took place in the Book of Esther. It is celebrated by reading or acting out the story of Esther, and by making disparaging noises at every mention of Haman (the antagonist)'s name. This is by far more fun than Hanukkah.

== Non-Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Chanukah]]''' - 25 Kislev - 2, 3 Tevet - The story of Hanukkah is preserved in the books of the First and Second Maccabees. These books are not part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), they are apocryphal books instead. The miracle of the one-day supply of oil miraculously lasting eight days is first described in the [[Talmud]].
* '''[[Tu Bishva]]t''' - 15 Shevat - Tu Bishvat is the new year for trees. According to the Mishnah, it marks the day from which fruit tithes are counted each year, and marks the timepoint from which the Biblical prohibition on eating the first three years of fruit and the requirement to bring the fourth year fruit to the Temple in Jerusalem were counted. In modern times, it is celebrated by eating various fruits and nuts associated with the Land of [[Israel]].

[[Category:Holidays]][[Category:Judaism]]

Jewish holidays

2008-12-18T19:31:10Z

JoshuaZ: Tu B'shvat is not in the Tanach. (it probably is minor enough that it shouldn't even be mentioned here but ah well. moving downwards)

'''Jewish holidays''' are the "holy days" observed according to the Jewish religion. They are cycled on a [[lunar calendar]] as opposed to [[Christian]] holidays which are cycled on the solar calendar.

The following are all the main holidays traditionally observed on the [[Judaism|Jewish]] calendar:

== Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Rosh Hashanah]]''' - 1-2 Tishrei - Rosh Ha-Shanah is the Jewish new year and day of judgement, in which [[God]] judges each person individually according to their deeds, and makes a decree for the following year. The holiday is characterized by the special mitzvah of blowing the shofar. The better people are "inscribed in the [[Book of Life]]."
* '''[[Yom Kippur]]''' ('''Day of Atonement''') - 10 Tishrei - Yom Kippur is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year. Its central theme is atonement and reconciliation. Eating, drinking, bathing, anointing with oil, and marital relations are prohibited. Fasting begins at sundown, and ends after nightfall the following day. Yom Kippur services begin with the prayer known as "Kol Nidrei", which must be recited before sunset.
* '''Sukkot''' - 15-21 Tishrei - Sukkot is a 7-day festival, also known as the Feast of Booths, the Feast of Tabernacles, or just Tabernacles. It is one of the three pilgrimage festivals mentioned in the Bible. The word sukkot is the plural of the Hebrew word sukkah, meaning booth. Jews are commanded to "dwell" in booths during the holiday. This generally means taking meals, but some sleep in the sukkah as well. There are specific rules for constructing a sukkah. The seventh day of the holiday is called Hoshanah Rabbah.
* '''Simchat Torah''' - 22 (23) Tishrei - Simchat Torah means "rejoicing with the Torah". It actually refers to a special ceremony which takes place on the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. This holiday immediately follows the conclusion of the holiday of Sukkot. In Israel, Shemini Atzeret is one day long and includes the celebration of Simchat Torah. Outside Israel, Shemini Atzeret is two days long and Simchat Torah is observed on the second day, which is often referred to by the name of the ceremony. The last portion of the Torah is read, completing the annual cycle, followed by the first chapter of Genesis. Services are especially joyous, and all attendees, young and old, are involved.
* '''[[Pesach]]''' ('''[[Passover]]''') - 14-22 Nisan - Pesach (Passover) commemorates the liberation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. No leavened food is eaten during the week of Pesach, in commemoration of the fact that the Jews left Egypt so quickly that their bread did not have enough time to rise.
* '''Shavuot''' - 6, 7 Sivan - Shavuot, The Feast of Weeks is one of the three pilgrim festivals (Shalosh regalim) ordained in the Torah, Shavuot marks the end of the counting of the Omer, the period between Passover and Shavuot. According to Rabbinic tradition, the [[Ten Commandments]] were given on this day. During this holiday the Torah portion containing the [[Ten Commandments]] is read in the synagogue, and the biblical Book of Ruth is read as well. It is traditional to eat dairy meals during Shavuot.
* '''Shabbat''' ('''Shabbas''') - Every seventh day - Jewish law accords the Sabbath the status of a holiday. Jews celebrate a ''Shabbat'', a day of rest, on the seventh day of each week. Jewish law defines a day as ending at nightfall, which is when the next day then begins. Thus, ''Shabbat'' begins at sundown Friday night, and ends at nightfall Saturday night.
:In many ways Jewish law gives ''Shabbat'' the status of being the most important holy day in the Jewish calendar.
:*It is the first holiday mentioned in the ''[[Tanakh]]'' (Hebrew Bible), and [[God]] was the first one to observe it.
:*The Jewish services treats the Sabbath as a bride and queen (along with God the groom).
:*The [[Torah]] reading on the Sabbath has more sections of Torah readings than on Yom Kippur, the most of any Jewish holiday.
:*There is a tradition that the [[Messiah]] will come if every Jew observes the Sabbath twice in a row. Additionally, Orthodox Jews observe 39 restrictions on the Sabbath. These include not cooking, lighting fires (includes using electricity), extinguishing fires, writing, cutting, etc.

== Non-Biblical holidays ==

* '''[[Chanukah]]''' - 25 Kislev - 2, 3 Tevet - The story of Hanukkah is preserved in the books of the First and Second Maccabees. These books are not part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), they are apocryphal books instead. The miracle of the one-day supply of oil miraculously lasting eight days is first described in the [[Talmud]].
* '''[[Purim]]''' - 14 Adar (2 Adar leap year) - Purim commemorates the events that took place in the Book of Esther. It is celebrated by reading or acting out the story of Esther, and by making disparaging noises at every mention of Haman (the antagonist)'s name. This is by far more fun than Hanukkah.
* '''[[Tu Bishva]]t''' - 15 Shevat - Tu Bishvat is the new year for trees. According to the Mishnah, it marks the day from which fruit tithes are counted each year, and marks the timepoint from which the Biblical prohibition on eating the first three years of fruit and the requirement to bring the fourth year fruit to the Temple in Jerusalem were counted. In modern times, it is celebrated by eating various fruits and nuts associated with the Land of [[Israel]].

[[Category:Holidays]][[Category:Judaism]]

Judaism

2008-12-18T19:29:05Z

JoshuaZ: /* Denominations */ has nothing to do with "literalism" which is a Christian concept. rewriting to try to explain in short form

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]) are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

[[Jesus]] was one of many Jewish teachers who disagreed with the Jewish authorities during his lifetime. He founded a new school of thought, which flourished even after his death and eventually became [[Christianity]]. Christians consider him to be the [[Messiah]] and even consider him to be the [[Son of God]]. Jews on the other hand, do not believe Jesus is either the messiah nor God's son. Other than those agreements amongst Jews concerning Jesus, Jewish views of Jesus vary greatly.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. There are four large branches. They are from the most traditional to the least:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*[[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]]
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]
*[[Reconstructionist|Reconstruction]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the east, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the eve of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants came [[King David]] as did [[Jesus Christ]]. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''Aggadah'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]

Kosher

2008-12-03T05:28:47Z

JoshuaZ: /* Rules of Kashrut */ no no no. trying to correct. in any event, this should all be sourced to something that actually knows what it is talking about like the Shulcan Aruch. why am I even bothering?

[[Image:Kashrut advertizement.jpg|thumb|right|300px|As illustrated by this advertisement for a New York delicatessen, the observance of kosher transforms food into a vehicle for holiness, making the kitchen the spiritual hub of the home. Through observance, every activity associated with food becomes an opportunity for spiritual refinement.<ref>"Y2K" (2002) [http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=22 Committee For The Advancement of Torah]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>]]
[[Kosher]] is the [[English|Anglicized]] form of the [[Hebrew]] term ''kasher'', which literally means "good" or "proper," but came to indicate an item "fit for ritual use." '''Kashrut''' thus means "fitness" for ritual use.<ref>"Kosher Terminology" [http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/kosher.htm Keeping Kosher: Jewish Dietary Laws]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref> The Hebrew word for non-kosher is ''trayf'', derived from the word ''terayfa'', "torn", stemming from the commandment not to eat meat that has been "torn" by other animals.<ref name="k">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm</ref> Any style of food may be kosher or non-kosher, from [[China|Chinese]] to [[Mexico|Mexican]] to [[Jewish]] food. Similarly, traditional Ashkenazic Jewish foods like knishes, bagels, blintzes, and matzah ball soup can all be non-kosher if not prepared in accordance with Jewish law.<ref>"Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws" [http://kosherfood.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=kosherfood&cdn=food&tm=18&gps=180_189_1436_754&f=10&tt=14&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm Judaism 101]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>

While Jewish Dietary Laws originated in the [[Bible]] (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 17), they have been codified and interpreted over the centuries by [[Rabbi|rabbinical]] authorities, and the definitions of kosher have evolved in response to changes in the food industry, the Jewish people, and world culture.<ref>Shimoni, Giora "What is Kosher Food?" [http://kosherfood.about.com/od/whatiskosherfood/f/kosherfood.htm About.com: Kosher Food]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>

==Rules of Kashrut==
The following is a rough outline of the rules of kashrut.

# A land animal may be eaten if it chews its cud and has split hooves.<ref name="an">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Animals</ref>
# Animals which live in the water must have fins and scales.<ref name="an"/>
# Blood is forbidden even from kosher animals.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Blood</ref>
# The sciatic nerve and its adjoining blood vessels may not be eaten.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Fats</ref>
# Insects are forbidden.<ref name="an"/><ref name="bug"/><ref name="bug2">http://www.skskosher.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32</ref>
# Rodents, reptiles, and amphibians, are all forbidden. <ref name="an"/>
# Vegetables and fruits must be checked for insects.<ref name="bug">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Fruits</ref><ref name="bug2"/>
# Milk and meat and or poultry derived foods must not be mixed.<ref name="s">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Separation</ref>
# Animals must be killed in a specific way by a shohet (the exception being fish).<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Shechitah</ref>
# Separate silverware must be used for fleshig (meat and poultry) and milchig (milk) foods.<ref name="s"/>
# Utensils (pots, pans, plates, flatware, etc., etc.) must also be kosher. A utensil picks up the kosher "status" (meat, dairy, pareve, or treif) of the food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it, and transmits that status back to the next food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Utensils</ref>
# Most Jews who keep Kosher wait 3 to 6 hours after eating fleshig to eat milchig though the reverse is not true.<ref name="s"/> Others wait other amounts of time.
# Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat/poultry or dairy.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Rules</ref>
# Amongst poultry, birds of prey are considered treyf.<ref name="an"/>
# Wine is not kosher if it has been touched by a non-Jews unless the wine has previously been boiled. This is due to the concern that the wine might be used for idolatrous purposes. <ref>http://www.skskosher.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=32</ref><ref>http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-thirst-wine.htm</ref>
# When, after the ritual slaughtering, an animal, apparently sound during its life, is found to have been diseased, its milk, or cheese made of its milk, is forbidden as food. <ref name="JE">Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Dietary Laws</ref>
# The ancient Israelites looked with horror upon the custom prevalent among the surrounding nations of cutting off a limb or a piece of flesh from a living animal and eating it.<ref name="JE"/> Such limbs had to be thrown away.<ref name="JE"/>
# Water that was left uncovered overnight was not permitted as drink in olden times, because of the apprehension that a serpent might have left its venom in it.<ref name="JE"/> Where serpents are not found this prohibition does not exist.<ref name="JE"/>

==Kashrut in the New Testament==

There is sufficient Scriptual evidence that in the New Testament Kashrut is abolished, or, at least, demoted from being a Divine imperative. This is primarily founded in the saying of Christ, "It is not what goes into a man that defiles but what goes out of a man that defiles him, for from the heart..." This is followed by either the words of the Gospel of Mark or slightly later gloss but representing the original apostolic understanding, "thus making all foods clean."

This understanding underpinned the new reality which the Church would not lose - from now on, the gentiles were grafted into the blessings of Abraham and in the Messiah were now one with the people of God, the Jewish believers in Jesus, and eat at the same table, partaking of the same food, and one with them in the most intimate and commonplace of all their activities - sharing around the dinner table. The common Eucharist, the Holy communion for all races of believers grew out of this understanding, and remained open to all, even, subsequent to New Testament times, after the actual meal portion dropped away. In the letter to the Galatians, Peter was taken to task by Paul for having violated this truth by absenting himself from the table attended by the gentiles.

Acts chapter 15 shows the ability to adapt to new situations and how the spirit of Jesus was applied with kindness, firmness, and understanding in the changing new situation of gentiles coming into the Church. The Old no longer had effect on the ingathering of the gentiles and they were free from the law of Moses. But they were not to eat meat with blood in it, a key element of Kashrut, for doing so was offensive to the Jews amongst them. "for Moses is read everywhere." - For the sake of peace. The unity of the Body of Christ was not to be violated.

Note: It may be that the prohibition against eating the blood came about from an understanding that the Divine intent in the original prohibition of the Old Testament was given as a pointer to the future sacrifice of the Son of God and the shedding of His blood. But this is not explicitly brought out in Acts 15. The rational in the original prohibition in the Old Testament reads, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for the soul, for it is the blood which makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11
Yet, the symbolic import of this interpretation is not foreign to Biblical interpretation, as the basis for not eating the portion containing the sciatic nerve is found in Scripture itself in the remembrance fostered by this restraint, of Jacob's struggle with the divine being and the subsequent wounding he received on the back of his thigh. One of the symptoms of sciatica is pain in the back portion of the thigh.

==Use in popular culture==
The term ''kosher'' has entered the popular culture to describe anything or anyone which is considered legitimate, honest or pleasing.

==Further reading==
<div class="references-small">
*Binyomen Forst, ''The Laws of Kashrus'', Mozniam, 1999
*Isidore Grunfeld, ''The Jewish Dietary Laws'', London: Soncino, 1972
*Isaac Klein, ''A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice'', JTSA, 1992
*James M. Lebeau, ''The Jewish Dietary Laws: Sanctify Life'', United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, New York, 1983
*Yacov Lipschutz, ''Kashruth: A Comprehensive Background and Reference Guide to the Principles of Kahruth''. New York:Mesorah Publications Ltd, 1989
</div>
{{RL}}

==External links==
===Resources on keeping kosher===
*[http://www.OUKosher.org Online resource for keeping Kosher and becoming Kosher certified - The Orthodox Union]
*[http://www.kashrut.org Questions and Answers about specific food products and kashrut in general]
*[http://www.kosherrecipe.org/keepkosher Guide to keeping kosher and Kosher Recipes]
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=113424 Guide to keeping kosher]
*[http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/kosher_Food_Symbols.htm International Kosher Symbols and Kosher Food Guidance]
*[http://www.kof-k.org/ Kosher Certification]
*''[http://www.star-k.com/ The Star K's website]''
*''[http://www.ok.org/ The O-K's website]''
*[http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm A useful guide to the issues of kashrus]

===Ritual slaughter===
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=222239 About Shechita: The Method of Animal Slaughter]
*[http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/041203/peta.shtml Controversy over recent PETA complaint]
*[http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html Studies on pain during slaughter]
*[http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/luminaries/monograph/forum_ar.shtml Conservative Judaism viewpoints on which methods should be considered kosher]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm Proposed British ban on kosher and halal meat]
*[http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/ Campaign against all ritual slaughter]

===Miscellaneous===
*[http://kosherfood.about.com About Kosher Food: Menus and Recipes]
*[http://www.kosher.com/Index.cfm Kosher.com]
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=93784 Traditional Kosher foods recipes]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20030424111703/schwartz.enviroweb.org/view-torah.html The Torah and vegetarianism]
*[http://www.encyclopaediajudaica.com/AboutTheEncyclopaedia/SampleContent/DietaryLaws Second Jewish Encyclopaedia's excerpt on kashrut and Jewish dietary laws]
*[http://www.kashrut.com/agencies/ Kashrut certification agencies (partial list)] from around the world, and their symbols which are found on all food that has been deemed kosher.

[[Category:Old Testament]]
[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Kosher

2008-12-03T05:17:27Z

JoshuaZ: /* Rules of Kashrut */ skeletons have nothing to do with this. gahh!

[[Image:Kashrut advertizement.jpg|thumb|right|300px|As illustrated by this advertisement for a New York delicatessen, the observance of kosher transforms food into a vehicle for holiness, making the kitchen the spiritual hub of the home. Through observance, every activity associated with food becomes an opportunity for spiritual refinement.<ref>"Y2K" (2002) [http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=22 Committee For The Advancement of Torah]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>]]
[[Kosher]] is the [[English|Anglicized]] form of the [[Hebrew]] term ''kasher'', which literally means "good" or "proper," but came to indicate an item "fit for ritual use." '''Kashrut''' thus means "fitness" for ritual use.<ref>"Kosher Terminology" [http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/kosher.htm Keeping Kosher: Jewish Dietary Laws]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref> The Hebrew word for non-kosher is ''trayf'', derived from the word ''terayfa'', "torn", stemming from the commandment not to eat meat that has been "torn" by other animals.<ref name="k">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm</ref> Any style of food may be kosher or non-kosher, from [[China|Chinese]] to [[Mexico|Mexican]] to [[Jewish]] food. Similarly, traditional Ashkenazic Jewish foods like knishes, bagels, blintzes, and matzah ball soup can all be non-kosher if not prepared in accordance with Jewish law.<ref>"Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws" [http://kosherfood.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=kosherfood&cdn=food&tm=18&gps=180_189_1436_754&f=10&tt=14&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm Judaism 101]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>

While Jewish Dietary Laws originated in the [[Bible]] (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 17), they have been codified and interpreted over the centuries by [[Rabbi|rabbinical]] authorities, and the definitions of kosher have evolved in response to changes in the food industry, the Jewish people, and world culture.<ref>Shimoni, Giora "What is Kosher Food?" [http://kosherfood.about.com/od/whatiskosherfood/f/kosherfood.htm About.com: Kosher Food]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>

==Rules of Kashrut==
The following is a rough outline of the rules of kashrut.

# A land animal may be eaten if it chews its cud and has split hooves.<ref name="an">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Animals</ref>
# Animals which live in the water must have fins and scales.<ref name="an"/>
# Blood is forbidden even from kosher animals.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Blood</ref>
# The sciatic nerve and its adjoining blood vessels may not be eaten.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Fats</ref>
# Insects are forbidden.<ref name="an"/><ref name="bug"/><ref name="bug2">http://www.skskosher.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32</ref>
# Rodents, reptiles, and amphibians, are all forbidden. <ref name="an"/>
# Vegetables and fruits must be checked for insects.<ref name="bug">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Fruits</ref><ref name="bug2"/>
# Milk and meat and or poultry derived foods must not be mixed.<ref name="s">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Separation</ref>
# Animals must be killed in a specific way by a shohet (the exception being fish).<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Shechitah</ref>
# Separate silverware must be used for fleshig (meat and poultry) and milchig (milk) foods.<ref name="s"/>
# Utensils (pots, pans, plates, flatware, etc., etc.) must also be kosher. A utensil picks up the kosher "status" (meat, dairy, pareve, or treif) of the food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it, and transmits that status back to the next food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Utensils</ref>
# Jews must wait 3 to 6 hours after eating fleshig to eat milchig though the reverse is not true.<ref name="s"/>
# Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat/poultry or dairy.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Rules</ref>
# Amongst poultry, birds of prey are considered treyf.<ref name="an"/>
# Wine can only be considered kosher if made by a Jew; because of the importance wine plays in Jewish holidays, the exception is if the wine is boiled.<ref>http://www.skskosher.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=32</ref><ref>http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-thirst-wine.htm</ref>
# When, after the ritual slaughtering, an animal, apparently sound during its life, is found to have been diseased, its milk, or cheese made of its milk, is forbidden as food. <ref name="JE">Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Dietary Laws</ref>
# The ancient Israelites looked with horror upon the custom prevalent among the surrounding nations of cutting off a limb or a piece of flesh from a living animal and eating it.<ref name="JE"/> Such limbs had to be thrown away.<ref name="JE"/>
# Water that was left uncovered overnight was not permitted as drink in olden times, because of the apprehension that a serpent might have left its venom in it.<ref name="JE"/> Where serpents are not found this prohibition does not exist.<ref name="JE"/>

==Kashrut in the New Testament==

There is sufficient Scriptual evidence that in the New Testament Kashrut is abolished, or, at least, demoted from being a Divine imperative. This is primarily founded in the saying of Christ, "It is not what goes into a man that defiles but what goes out of a man that defiles him, for from the heart..." This is followed by either the words of the Gospel of Mark or slightly later gloss but representing the original apostolic understanding, "thus making all foods clean."

This understanding underpinned the new reality which the Church would not lose - from now on, the gentiles were grafted into the blessings of Abraham and in the Messiah were now one with the people of God, the Jewish believers in Jesus, and eat at the same table, partaking of the same food, and one with them in the most intimate and commonplace of all their activities - sharing around the dinner table. The common Eucharist, the Holy communion for all races of believers grew out of this understanding, and remained open to all, even, subsequent to New Testament times, after the actual meal portion dropped away. In the letter to the Galatians, Peter was taken to task by Paul for having violated this truth by absenting himself from the table attended by the gentiles.

Acts chapter 15 shows the ability to adapt to new situations and how the spirit of Jesus was applied with kindness, firmness, and understanding in the changing new situation of gentiles coming into the Church. The Old no longer had effect on the ingathering of the gentiles and they were free from the law of Moses. But they were not to eat meat with blood in it, a key element of Kashrut, for doing so was offensive to the Jews amongst them. "for Moses is read everywhere." - For the sake of peace. The unity of the Body of Christ was not to be violated.

Note: It may be that the prohibition against eating the blood came about from an understanding that the Divine intent in the original prohibition of the Old Testament was given as a pointer to the future sacrifice of the Son of God and the shedding of His blood. But this is not explicitly brought out in Acts 15. The rational in the original prohibition in the Old Testament reads, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for the soul, for it is the blood which makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11
Yet, the symbolic import of this interpretation is not foreign to Biblical interpretation, as the basis for not eating the portion containing the sciatic nerve is found in Scripture itself in the remembrance fostered by this restraint, of Jacob's struggle with the divine being and the subsequent wounding he received on the back of his thigh. One of the symptoms of sciatica is pain in the back portion of the thigh.

==Use in popular culture==
The term ''kosher'' has entered the popular culture to describe anything or anyone which is considered legitimate, honest or pleasing.

==Further reading==
<div class="references-small">
*Binyomen Forst, ''The Laws of Kashrus'', Mozniam, 1999
*Isidore Grunfeld, ''The Jewish Dietary Laws'', London: Soncino, 1972
*Isaac Klein, ''A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice'', JTSA, 1992
*James M. Lebeau, ''The Jewish Dietary Laws: Sanctify Life'', United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, New York, 1983
*Yacov Lipschutz, ''Kashruth: A Comprehensive Background and Reference Guide to the Principles of Kahruth''. New York:Mesorah Publications Ltd, 1989
</div>
{{RL}}

==External links==
===Resources on keeping kosher===
*[http://www.OUKosher.org Online resource for keeping Kosher and becoming Kosher certified - The Orthodox Union]
*[http://www.kashrut.org Questions and Answers about specific food products and kashrut in general]
*[http://www.kosherrecipe.org/keepkosher Guide to keeping kosher and Kosher Recipes]
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=113424 Guide to keeping kosher]
*[http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/kosher_Food_Symbols.htm International Kosher Symbols and Kosher Food Guidance]
*[http://www.kof-k.org/ Kosher Certification]
*''[http://www.star-k.com/ The Star K's website]''
*''[http://www.ok.org/ The O-K's website]''
*[http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm A useful guide to the issues of kashrus]

===Ritual slaughter===
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=222239 About Shechita: The Method of Animal Slaughter]
*[http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/041203/peta.shtml Controversy over recent PETA complaint]
*[http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html Studies on pain during slaughter]
*[http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/luminaries/monograph/forum_ar.shtml Conservative Judaism viewpoints on which methods should be considered kosher]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm Proposed British ban on kosher and halal meat]
*[http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/ Campaign against all ritual slaughter]

===Miscellaneous===
*[http://kosherfood.about.com About Kosher Food: Menus and Recipes]
*[http://www.kosher.com/Index.cfm Kosher.com]
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=93784 Traditional Kosher foods recipes]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20030424111703/schwartz.enviroweb.org/view-torah.html The Torah and vegetarianism]
*[http://www.encyclopaediajudaica.com/AboutTheEncyclopaedia/SampleContent/DietaryLaws Second Jewish Encyclopaedia's excerpt on kashrut and Jewish dietary laws]
*[http://www.kashrut.com/agencies/ Kashrut certification agencies (partial list)] from around the world, and their symbols which are found on all food that has been deemed kosher.

[[Category:Old Testament]]
[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Jesse Helms

2007-08-06T03:15:41Z

JoshuaZ: /* Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting */ sp

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Ethel Mae Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, the oppressed, and support for freedom. Like most conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently the target of mainstream [[media bias]], despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms was a staunch advocate for equality under law, but due to his Southern background and incorrect party affiliation, his positions were misrepresrented through typically biased reporting. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of Western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as [[NATO]] as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from high school, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. According to an article The News and Observer on 8/26/01, while working on the 1950 campaign of Republican Willis Smith against Democrat Frank Porter Graham, Helms helped create an ad that read "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activism <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

In 1970, Helms left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the moderate Republican policies of candidate [[Richard M. Nixon]], Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis with liberal presidential candidate George McGovern.

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Helms supported and befriended qualified candidates regardless of party affiliation whom he felt would better the country, such as [[Madeline Albright]] for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite ideological differences. However, Helms was broadminded and tolerant of contrary views, and unafraid to be proven in error. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to stop the devastation caused by [[AIDS]] in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."{{fact}}

=== Standing on principal ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left [[feminist]] group, the [[National Organization for Women]] -- on hearing of Helms ill health and planned retirement reacted gleefully with the statement "It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Liberal smears ===

Some in the liberal media have questioned Helms integrity largely due to his standing against affirmative action programs and quotas and secondly for his opposition to many liberal appointees for federal office <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms stated in his biography he has stood up for candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He has opposed liberal and unqualified candidates in posts for which they were not qualified. The record shows Helms enthusiastically supported African American candidates Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Claude Allen, and Condoleezza Rice, as well as other well qualified candidates for the positions in which they were appointed. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Humanitarian ==

Jesse Helms continued to work on his humanitarian causes after leaving office until he became incapacitated. Since then others continue his work in his name. His approach encourages individual and organization charity rather than government intervention. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org</ref>

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Unconstitutional

2007-08-06T03:05:24Z

JoshuaZ: correcting defintion, + expanding

A law is '''unconstitutional''' when it conflicts with the Constitution of that country. In the [[United States]], generally federal courts are responsible for determining whether a law conflicts with the [[United States Constitution]] with the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] being the final arbiter. Courts have had this power since [[Marbury v. Madison]] although there is little explicit basis for the power in the Constitution itself.

[[Category:Law]]

Annihilationism

2007-08-06T02:13:25Z

JoshuaZ: +source

'''Annihilationism''' is the minority [[Christian]] view that the wicked do not suffer eternally in Hell, but rather are annihilated and cease to exist after death. The view is regarded as heretical by many Christians. The view is subscribed to by [[Seventh-Day Adventist]]s.[
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html]
[[Category:Religion]]

Annihilationism

2007-08-06T01:44:09Z

JoshuaZ: +note about SDA

User talk:Order

2007-08-03T04:37:34Z

JoshuaZ: SVU

Just a note on your recent revert at [[Christianity]]; the vandal was [[User:Shortdog57]], not [[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I know. My edit message 'reverted vandalism by shortdog; reverted to version by Hojimachong' was mangeled. If you click on Hojimachong in the history of [[Christianity|Christianity]] you will get to shortdog. Not sure why this happend.

Point taken on European liberal parties. Have contributed minor point to discussion on liberal and applied a minor edit to the article.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for reverting the Christianity page. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Warning: you posted a derogatory comment to my talk page ''after'' I warned someone else not to post further discussion about on that topic (Wikipedia's bias) there. Each content page has a talk page for postings comments. Another example of an inappropriate posting will result in the blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

<s>You must be a communist.</s> I PROVED to you that global warming is a myth by giving you a link! Why are you questioning it?! - [[User:Sauli|Sauli]] 10:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This comment just shows that you have no clue what communism means. You proved that you were able to google. --[[User:Order|Order]]

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sniggers* --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Without the communist remark, my answer is: iirc, all you did is quote an article about a danish scientist, saying that global warming is overhyped, and that the way its there exist no reasonable definition of average global temperature. I actually think similar about it. Now your 'argument': First, he doesn't say that its not true, just that it is bad science (I wouldn't actually go that far). But the actual problem with your argument is, that a single researcher opposing it doesn't make it a myth. Just as little as a single researcher makes it a fact. [[User:Order]] 7 april, 00:50 (AEST)
Just so you know: I believe that your sig is broken. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler ==

To avoid even more discussion, could you add the citations to your excellent additions to the Putsch? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 05:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the attributions, good sir. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 07:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==

I didn't put anything back, in that thread. Look closely. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you didn't, Rob did. Sorry, if I did attribute it to the wrong person. [[User:Order]] 26 March.

== German Homeschooling ==

I'll score that little debate as a big win to the Germans - well done! Makes up for the World Cup ;-) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, we will see. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:01, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

**Well, we already have. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your support with very well put arguments. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

TK, why did you revert the last comment by ResistanceFighter on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. User:Order May 21 11:40 (AEST)

Order, I have an old saying: "Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!" The last comment there, FYI, on Fighter's talk page was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting there, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: : What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25 [[User:Order]] May 25

*Normal on RW or WP, as you might have noticed by now, is not "normal" here, right? Sorry for the too hostile tone above, man, but doesn't change the answer. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:49, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

That's cool. You explained it well. [[User:Order]] May 27.

*Trying to cool things down a bit, and leave more room for debate and not get things superheated. Your help is always appreciated on that. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hi [[User:Order|Order]], thanks for commenting the spin put on the paper about the higher minimum wage teenagers dropping out of school. You saved me the bother. The last time I commented on dubious interpretations of news articles or suchlike on the [[Main Page]] I was blocked for a month. Proceed with care;-). You might like pop round to my [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|user page]]. [[User:TK|TK]] requested I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatIsG0ing0n&diff=180453&oldid=180350 improve it]. I hope you like it better than my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:WhatIsG0ing0n&oldid=179908 old version]. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:28, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, its not easy to remain calm, especially if the offender, say the sloppy party, can call you names and make unsubstantiated claims, while if you try to fix it you cannot even use sarcasm (bootable offense), and have to backup everything, twice. Trice. On the other hand its also easy, because you will rarely be confronted with facts and arguments that have significant weight. BTW: I can get what the problem was with your previous site :). [[User:Order]] May 30

== somewhere you might be welcome ==

[http://www.nationalwiki.com nationalwiki.com], somewhere to dispel pseudoscience and fundamentalist dogma. it ''is'' full of liberal deceit though (things like facts, open discussion, acceptance). [[User:Goldenratio|Goldenratio]] 05:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:What fun are facts? They are constraining the free thought way to much. Sounds like a liberal thing, this bias against freedom. [[User:Order]] May 30

==Stubs==

We're trying to keep the site free of as many stubs as possible except in the case of one or two sentence articles, so we can know what to improve. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:46, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler ==

Go ahead. :-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:16, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

:And also go ahead with [[Weimar Republic]]. You can erase ''all of it'' and start over, as far as I'm concerned. See also the link I left at [[talk:Weimar Republic]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I am fairly reluctant to start editing, because there is a lot of "folk history" about Hitler around, like that he got elected because of hyper-inflation. Doing it well requires some research, and I'm not an amateur historian. I just dislike simple explanations. [[User:Order]]

*As far as I am concerned, sysops who will not discuss such suggestions to editors are way out of line. I will be keeping hitler locked, and locking Nazi Party, and rolling them into one. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:41, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== deep breath ==Order, it was a joke. Sorry if you took it seriously. I know you have made valuable contributions to the article. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:We probably all spend more time on this site than is good for us. [[User:Order]] 29 July

*We probably all spend more time on several sites than is good for us. Wouldn't you agree? :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

How do you know that I watched an entire week of the Daily Show yesterday? Man, you are good. [[User:Order]]

*Why yes. Yes I am. I am amazed at just how perceptive you suddenly seem to be! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 04:06, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Re: Hillary front page article==

As someone who has actually had a statistics class, I applaud you for trying to set the record straight on the front page. Good luck though; that same fallacy is made over and over on here and bringing up the point will only get you called a liberal. I guess only liberals can correctly phrase the findings of a statistic? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't you start calling me a liberal as well. Just because I can read tables. But, frankly I am always amazed at (1) whenever you point to an error made by one of the sysops, you are called liberal, and that is often the only argument. (2) That so much effort is done to defend such sloppy errors. It would be much easier to just fix it. [[User:Order]]

::Ha ha, I wasn't calling you a liberal, that was making fun of other people who incorrectly label you that way. Those two points you made will be the downfall of this site if they keep on that way...

::I was sincerely complimenting you; since everyone on the main page seems to be against you I figured you could use some support. :) I was just saying that I've taken a statistics class (two, actually) and a large part of the "dirty work" is how to correctly use the statistics. There is a huge difference between what the Pew poll says and what the headline says. Whoever posted the headline would have gotten that question wrong on a stats exam! (They then, of course, would blame it on the liberal intelligencia or something *rolls eyes*). Anyway, fight the good fight. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to have fun with statistic follow the links to the data used in [Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia], point 24. [[User:Order]]

::::Heh, yeah, that was probably one of the first things I ever saw on this site. And if it weren't for that I would probably take a lot more things here at face value. Talk about irony! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== FBI discussion ==

Word of advice - just drop it. You didn't break any rules, but you're questioning a touchy subject. Unless you're not in violation of 90/10, you need to let it go or else they're gonna give you the stick. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Cool. [[User:Order]]

== SVU ==

Huh? I didn't edit that section at all. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Madonna

2007-07-31T03:07:04Z

JoshuaZ: immodest is an accurate description

'''Madonna Louise Ciccone''' is an [[American]] singer known for her immodest style of dress, songs, music videos and books. She has also been associated with extremely [[sacriligeous]] material such as videos featuring her simulating immoral acts with statues of Christ.

Samuel Barton

2007-07-30T21:20:55Z

JoshuaZ: /* Nashville */ truck->trunk

==Colonel Samuel Barton==

'''Colonel Samuel Barton''' (May 1749-January 1810) was a pioneer and Patriot of the [[American Revolution]] (1775-1783) but is remembered more for the exploration and settlement of what was to become [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee]].

==Early Life==

Little is known of his early youth. Family tradition holds that Samuel, born in [[Virginia]], was left bound as an apprentice while his father returned to [[England]] for business only to be lost at sea. Recent y-DNA testing of a male descendant of Samuel Barton has shown that this branch of Barton’s are part of a lineage whose earliest known member in America was Lewis Barton of Maryland.

==Exploration==

Barton may have first explored the Cumberland region as a teenager with the Scraggins Party of 1765. This is supported by the fact that biographical sources put him in Nashville “…when there were but four families residing in the place, and when it was necessary to take every precaution to guard against the Indians”. Regardless of the chronology, it is evident that he vacillated between his native Virginia and the wilds of Tennessee. In 1774 he fought as a ranger against [[American Indians|Indians]] in [[Lord Dunmore’s War]].

==Revolutionary War==

With the onset of the [[American Revolution]] he mustered in Virginia in June of 1775. He served as Sergeant in Morgan's Rifles of the 7th Virginia Regiment, the acclaimed snipers. As an explorer, hunter and frontiersman, Barton proved an ideal soldier. Botetourt County, Virginia court records log his marriage to Martha Robertson on March 10, 1778. With the advantages of military training and leadership he returned to Tennessee and contributed to the settling and development of Fort Nashborough, what was to become [[Nashville]].

== Nashville==

As a testament to the American faith in written law, Barton, General James Robertson and other prominent men of the area drafted and signed the Cumberland Compact in May 1780. This document served as constitution until Tennessee became the 16th state of the Union in 1796. In 1846, historian Albigence Waldo Putnam found the original document in a trunk that had belonged to Barton. The settlement was governed by the “Tribunal of Notables”, Barton being one of the twelve. In April 1781, a few days before the “[[Battle of the Bluffs]]” he suffered a shot in the wrist defending pioneers from Indians.

On January 7, 1783, a second Cumberland Compact was created and signed by Barton and nine other founders. Upon the creation of Davidson County in April of that year, Barton was appointed as Justice of the Peace and Judge of the County Court. In October of 1783 he was elected as Court Entry-Taker and was sworn in as 2nd Major of the Militia. In 1784 Samuel Barton was designated as one of the five Directors as well as Treasurer of the fledgling city. He was later selected as a Colonel of the Militia.
In 1798, not yet 50 years of age.

==Later Life==

Samuel Barton resigned from civic life and moved his large family to what would the next year become Wilson County, Tennessee. For the last 12 years of his life he farmed his extensive land holdings, having been granted more than 1000 acres. His large plantation was on Jenning’s Fork of Round Lick Creek. He took up the vocation of surveying and appraising land. His burial site is unknown.

==Children==

*Jane Barton-married-1st John Bradley, Jr., 2nd William Woodward
*Margaret Barton-married-Jospeh Love Wilson
*Elizabeth Barton-married-Thomas Dooley
*Samuel Barton, Jr.-killed-War of 1812
*Stephen Barton-married-Eleanor Baird
*Joseph Barton-married-unknown
*Gabriel Barton-married-Jane Johnson

==References==
Partow, Thomas E., Revolutionary Soldiers in Wilson County, Tennessee 1982
Ramsey, MD, J.G.M., The Annals of Tennessee, 1926, Kingsport Press
Ray, Worth, Tennessee Cousins, 1980 Genealogical Publishing Co.,Inc
Merritt, Dixon, The History of Wilson County, 1961 Benson Printing
Three Pioneer Tennessee Documents, 1964, Tennessee Historical Commission
Fulcher,Richard Carlton, 1770-1790 Census of The Cumberland Settlements, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.
Ferrell, Burta, 1979, Samuel Barton Patriot and Pioneer, TN ST Archives
East Tennessee Historical Society,First Families of Tennessee:A Register of early Settlers and their Present-Day Descendants, 2000, Ambrose Printing

Refusal to deal

2007-07-30T21:18:40Z

JoshuaZ: gram

A refusal to deal, also known as a "group boycott," is an agreement by competitors not to do business with another company. This is generally illegal in United States under the antitrust laws.

In the case of a [[horizontal]] concerted refusal to deal, the jury instructions include the following:<ref>ABA Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases B-50 to -51 (2005 Ed.)</ref>

: The Sherman Act prohibits two or more persons or businesses from agreeing with each other not to [state allegation of refusal to deal] where certain circumstances are shown to exist, a situation sometimes referred to as a "group boycott."

: To prevail on this claim against a defendant, plaintiff must prove as to that defendant each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

:: First, that the defendant and one or more other persons refused to deal with the plaintiff by [state allegations here];

:: Second, that the refusal to deal was pursuant to an agreement between that defendant and one or more other persons or businesses;

:: Third, that at least two of the parties to the agreement are direct competitors;

:: Fourth, that the refusal to deal disadvantaged plaintiff by denying plaintiff access to a supply of product, a facility, or a market or service necessary for plaintiff to compete effectively;

:: Fifth, that the refusal to deal occurred in or affected interstate commerce; and

:: Sixth, that plaintiff was injured in its business or property because of the refusal to deal.

: If you find that the evidence is insufficient to prove any one or more of these elements as to a defendant, then you must find for that defendant and against plaintiff on plaintiff's concerted refusal to deal claim. If you find that the evidence is sufficient to prove all six elements as to a defendant, then you must find for the plaintiff and against that defendant on plaintiff's concerted refusal to deal claim.

== History ==
The term ''boycott'' is a reference to Charles Cunningham Boycott (1832-1897). Boycott was a British land agent working in County Mayo in Ireland. In 1880, the Irish Land League undertook a campaign to eliminate exploitation of tenant farmers based on "the three Fs": fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale. Laborers refused to harvest crops on the estate of Lord Erne, Boycott's employer. When Boycott attempted to intervene to stop the campaign, he was ostracized by the local community. Boycott left Ireland the same year, but his name lives on as the source of the verb ''boycott'', meaning "to ostracize."

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[category:United States law]]

Abraham

2007-07-30T15:39:47Z

JoshuaZ: uh, I think you wanted to go to this version maybe?

[[Image:abraham_sacrificing_isaac.jpg|thumb|right|200px|''Abraham Sacrificing Isaac'' by Rembrandt]]

'''Abraham''' (Hebrew '''אַבְרָהָם''') lived in [[Ur]] approximately 1800 BC. His story is told in the book of [[Genesis]]. He is credited in the [[Bible]] as the father of [[Judaism]] and the recipient of a covenant with God. Held up as an example of faith to all Christians, Jews, and Muslims, Abraham migrated to [[Canaan]] in obedience to God's command. In the Bible, Abraham had two important children, [[Ishmael]] and [[Isaac]]. The descendants of Isaac became the [[Israelite|Israelites]] as chronicled in the Bible. The [[Arab]]s claim to be descended from Ishmael, although this is not discussed in the Bible itself.

Abraham was born in the land of Ur of the chaldeans and named Abram. His family was descended from Shem, one of Noah's sons. His father's name was Terah, his brothers were Nahor and Haran. He was married to his half-sister, Sarai. When his father left Ur, Abram left with him. They stopped at the city of Haran, where Terah died. Abram was then called by God to leave his land. God promised that, if he followed him, he would give him land, descendants, fame, and riches. Abram obeyed God and left Haran at age 75, and took his nephew, [[Lot]], with him. They went onto the land of Canaan, all the way to Shechem. He would also move to a mountain, west of Bethel and east of Ai, where he built an altar to the Lord. <ref> Genesis 11:27-12:9. </ref>

He also moved on to the south and dwelt there for a time until a famine came and he went to Egypt. However, when he arrived he was afraid that, because of his wife's beauty, the egyptians would kill him. So he lied and said that she was his sister instead. Unfortunately, Pharoh then took Sarai into his house. Because of this, God plagued Pharoh and his house. Pharoh ordered Abram and his wife to leave. Abram went back between Bethel and Ai. <ref> Genesis 12:10-20. </ref>

After he left Egypt, Abram's men and Lot's men quarrelled for land and water for herds. Abram selflessly offered Lot the best of the land to take. Lot chose to live in the fertile plains of Jordan, near the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abram moved toward the terebinth trees of Mamre, in Hebron. During this time, God renewed his promise of land and descendants. Abram built an alter where he dwelt to the Lord. <ref> Genesis 13. </ref>

Abram was also a skilled general and fighter. When Lot, his nephew, was taken prisoner during a war between the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, and Goyim against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Belah. Abram ambushed them and fought for his nephew. He won a great victory against them. After the battle, when Abram went to meet with the King of Sodom in the King's Valley, he met with Melchizedek, King of Salem. Melchizedek blessed Abram and God, for he was High Priest of God. Abram gave him a tithe of all he had. The King of Sodom offered Abram all the riches of the victory, which had been won. However, Abram had none of it. After this, the Lord returned to Abram and renamed him as Abraham (meaning father of many nations) and his wife from Sarai (meaning Princess) to [[Sarah]] (meaning Queen.) God also made a covenant with him that included a prophecy of captivity for his descendants, and a promise of deliverance and great land. <ref> Genesis 14-15. </ref>

Abraham was married to Sarah, but was childless. God came to him and told him his descendents would be as numerous as the sand on the shore. As time went on and Sarah had still not conceived, Sarah gave her maidservant [[Hagar]] to Abraham to have children. Ishmael was born from this union. (Genesis 16: 1-5). Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. (Genesis 16:16) Abraham had his son of the covenant through his wife Sarah when he was 100 years old and his wife Sarah was 90, beyond normal child bearing years at that time. When Isaac was still young, Sarah told Abraham to send away Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham complied.

The most famous story of Abraham dealt with his son Isaac, when Abraham was told by God to take him up into the mountains and sacrifice him. (Genesis 22:1-14) Abraham did as he was told, but at the last moment an angel of the Lord told him to stop and another sacrifice was there to be put in his place, "for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me."<ref>Genesis 22:12</ref> Christians see this as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of [[Jesus]].

In response to Abraham's display of love for God by being willing to sacrifice his only beloved son, "The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said:<ref>Genesis 22:15-18</ref>

:I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.

After that Abraham's wife Sarah, died. Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite for four hundred sheckels of silver. There Sarah was buried. After that, Abraham sent his servant back to the land where he came from to find a wife for his son Isaac. His servant's way was prosperous and brought back [[Rebekah]], daughter of Bethuel, son of Nahor. Abraham also remarried to Keturah and she bore him six sons: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Abraham gave all he had to Isaac, and sent his sons away east with gifts. Abraham then died at the age of 175 years. He was buried by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. <ref> Genesis23-25:11. </ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Biblical persons]]
[[Category:Ancient History]]

Francis Nash

2007-07-30T15:29:56Z

JoshuaZ: start stub

'''Francis Nash''' was [[United States]] brigadier general who died from wounds at the battle of Germantown. [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee]] was named in his memory.

Nashville, Tennessee

2007-07-30T15:26:15Z

JoshuaZ: expanding

{{expand}}
'''Nashville''' is the capital city of [[Tennessee]]. Nashville is the second largest city in Tenessee by population ([[Memphis]] being the first). Nashville was originally founded as Fort Nashborough named after [[Francis Nash]] a general killed in the [[Revolutionary War]].

[[Category:US Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Samuel Barton

2007-07-30T15:23:10Z

JoshuaZ: wkfy

==Colonel Samuel Barton==

Colonel Samuel Barton (May 1749-January 1810) was a pioneer and Patriot of the [[American Revolution]] (1775-1783) but is remembered more for the exploration and settlement of what was to become [[Nashville]], Tennessee. Little is known of his early youth. Family tradition holds that Samuel, born in Virginia, was left bound as an apprentice while his father returned to England for business only to be lost at sea. Recent y-DNA testing of a male descendant of Samuel Barton has shown that this branch of Barton’s are part of a lineage whose earliest known member in America was Lewis Barton of Maryland.
Barton may have first explored the Cumberland region as a teenager with the Scraggins Party of 1765. This is supported by the fact that biographical sources put him in Nashville “…when there were but four families residing in the place, and when it was necessary to take every precaution to guard against the Indians”. Regardless of the chronology it is evident that he vacillated between his native Virginia and the wilds of Tennessee. In 1774 he fought as a ranger against Indians in Lord Dunmore’s War. With the onset of the American Revolution he mustered in Virginia in June of 1775. He served as Sergeant in Morgan's Rifles of the 7th Virginia Regiment, the acclaimed snipers. As an explorer, hunter and frontiersman Barton proved an ideal soldier. Botetourt County, Virginia court records log his marriage to Martha Robertson on March 10, 1778.
With the advantages of military training and leadership he returned to Tennessee and contributed to the settling and development of Fort Nashborough, what was to become Nashville. As a testament to the American faith in written law Barton, General (early American)|James Robertson and other prominent men of the area drafted and signed the Cumberland Compact in May 1780. This document served as constitution until Tennessee became the 16th state of the Union in 1796. In 1846, historian Albigence Waldo Putnam found the original document in a truck that had belonged to Barton. The settlement was governed by the “Tribunal of Notables”, Barton being one of the twelve. In April 1781, a few days before the “Battle of the Bluffs” he suffered a shot in the wrist defending pioneers from Indians.
On January 7, 1783, a second Cumberland Compact was created and signed by Barton and nine other founders. Upon the creation of Davidson County in April of that year Barton was appointed as Justice of the Peace and Judge of the County Court. In October of 1783 he was elected as Court Entry-Taker and was sworn in as 2nd Major of the Militia. In 1784 Samuel Barton was designated as one of the five Directors as well as Treasurer of the fledgling city. He was later selected as a Colonel of the Militia.
In 1798, not yet 50 years of age, Samuel Barton resigned from civic life and moved his large family to what would the next year become Wilson County, Tennessee. For the last 12 years of life he farmed his extensive land holdings, having been granted more than 1000 acres. His large plantation was on Jenning’s Fork of Round Lick Creek. He took up the vocation of surveying and appraising land. His burial site is unknown.

==Children==

Jane Barton-married-1st John Bradley, Jr., 2nd William Woodward
Margaret Barton-married-Jospeh Love Wilson
Elizabeth Barton-married-Thomas Dooley
Samuel Barton, Jr.-killed-War of 1812
Stephen Barton-married-Eleanor Baird
Joseph Barton-married-unknown
Gabriel Barton-married-Jane Johnson

==References==
Partow, Thomas E., Revolutionary Soldiers in Wilson County, Tennessee 1982
Ramsey, MD, J.G.M., The Annals of Tennessee, 1926, Kingsport Press
Ray, Worth, Tennessee Cousins, 1980 Genealogical Publishing Co.,Inc
Merritt, Dixon, The History of Wilson County, 1961 Benson Printing
Three Pioneer Tennessee Documents, 1964, Tennessee Historical Commission
Fulcher,Richard Carlton, 1770-1790 Census of The Cumberland Settlements, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.
Ferrell, Burta, 1979, Samuel Barton Patriot and Pioneer, TN ST Archives
East Tennessee Historical Society,First Families of Tennessee:A Register of early Settlers and their Present-Day Descendants, 2000, Ambrose Printing

Transistor

2007-07-29T17:57:08Z

JoshuaZ: how they work (very basic)

The '''transistor''' was invented at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, by scientists William Shockley, Walter Brattain, and John Bardeen from the University of Minnesota.

==Function==

There are two basic types of transistors, field effect transistors, which use an electric field to control how conductive a channel of semiconductor is, and bipolar junction transistors which work by modifying the level of electric charge in certain semiconductors.

==History==

Brattain and Bardeen usually worked without much supervision, as Shockley worked mostly from home. Their mission was to create the first amplifier using semiconductors.

Bardeen and Brattain were a perfect partnership, as Bardeen was a brilliant theoretician and Brattain a genius at experiments.

In December 1947, Bardeen had the insight that electrons formed a barrier on the surface, and Brattain worked that insight into a point-contact transistor. It used strips of gold foil on a plastic triangle, held in contact by a slab of germanium.

Shockley improved it to become the junction (sandwich) transistor. He mostly built it in a hotel room in Chicago. Once perfected, this was more durable than the point-contact transistor, and far easier to make. Upon this the semiconductor industry was built.

Bell Labs announced the invention to the public on June 30, 1948. Bell Labs engineer John Pierce gave it the name "transistor", a combination of "trans-resistance" with the names like thermistors.

Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley made very little money from their invention. Others, like Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce in founding Intel, made a fortune. This was true even though Shockley himself saw the potential and started the company upon which Silicon Valley was based.

Japanese engineers like Masaru Ibuka and Akio Morita, who founded Sony Electronics, were successful in improving the manufacturing of transistors.

==Significance==
Transistors created a revolution in electronics.

Prior to the transistor, electronics relied on vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes made possible very sophisticated electronics, including broadcast radio and television as we know them, radar, and the first electronic computers.

But vacuum tubes are large, expensive, power-hungry, and unreliable. Vacuum tubes use filaments like light bulbs. A typical tube consumes as much power as a ten or twenty-watt bulb. When turned on, tubes need many minutes to "warm up" and stabilize. During this time, radios do not hold their tuning and "drift" away from stations.

Like light bulbs, vacuum tubes have a short life. Eventually the filament burns out and the tube needs to be replaced.

In a home radio with six tubes, tube failure was only a nuisance. In an electronic computer—like the 17,468-tube ENIAC—it was disastrous, because with that many tubes some would always be failing.

The telephone company was concerned with tubes as well. Telephone signals cannot travel thousands of miles under the sea without amplification. Built into the cable every few miles were ''repeaters,'' electronic amplifiers to keep boosting and restoring signal strength. It is not easy to replace a tube when it fails in a cable on the sea floor.

And the military, which was starting to use electronics, was concerned because tubes are made of glass and are fragile, unable to withstand G-forces and vibration.

The transistor ushered in the "solid-state revolution," and another revolution called "miniaturization." Compared to tubes, transistors were at least a hundred times smaller, used a hundred times less power, and were extremely stable and reliable. At first, the transistor changed things in small ways. The book-sized portable radios that used small tubes were displaced by pocket-sized "transistor radios." Over time, transistors completely reshaped the way in which electronics could be used and the things that could be done with it.

A computer made out of transistors did not require continuous component replacement, and because of the stability of transistors it could be turned on and just start working properly within seconds. Transistorized circuits could withstand military conditions, in missiles for example, making electronic guidance systems much more feasible.

Originally "miniaturization" simply meant replacing light-bulb-sized tubes with jelly-bean-sized transistors. But a second breakthrough occurred in the 1960s, when engineers realized that the same technology used to create a single transistor on a semiconductor wafer could be used to create many interconnected transistors. Over time, engineers learned to put dozens, hundreds, thousand, and eventually millions of transistors onto a single chip, launching the "digital revolution."

[[Category:Technology]]

Neville Chamberlain

2007-07-14T23:22:34Z

JoshuaZ: removing unsourced opinion that many would disagree with (and it doesn't seem to be a conservative opinion, so probably free to remove)

[[Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg|300px|right|thumb|Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both [[Adolf Hitler]] and himself on his return from [[Germany]] at [[Heston]] Airport on September 1938. He said: ''My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time''.]]

British Prime Minister '''Neville Chamberlain''' was born in 1869 and died in 1940. He became Prime Minister in 1937 and together with France's [[Edouard Daladier]] signed the [[Munich Pact]] with [[Germany]]. This allowed Germany to annex the [[Sudetenland]] in exchange for a promise of peace. Chamberlain received a hero's welcome upon his return to Great Britain, declaring that the pact had provided "peace in our time." He also immediately took steps to bring the Britsh armed forces into a state of readiness for war. Hitler looked upon Chamberlain as an extremely wily chracter, and felt that he had been cheated out of war.

Not long after, Hitler took all of [[Czechoslovakia]] and then invaded [[Poland]], starting [[World War II]]. In the spring of 1940, following British and French reverses in [[Norway]], Chamberlain resigned and [[Winston Churchill]] became Prime Minister.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chamberlain, Neville}}
[[Category:UK Prime Ministers]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Paul Kruger

2007-07-14T23:21:28Z

JoshuaZ: +death

'''Stephanes Johannes Paulus Kruger''' was an Afrikaner political leader in the late nineteenth century. He president of the [[South Africa]]n Republic of the [[Transvaal]]. He led his country during its war with the [[United Kingdom]] from 1899-1902. When it became clear his country would lose he fled to Switzerland where he stayed until his death in 1904.

[[Category:Political people|Kruger, Paul]]

Pascal's wager

2007-07-14T23:17:27Z

JoshuaZ: explaining Pascal's logic in slightly more detail

'''Pascal's Wager''' is a [[philosophy|philosophical]] proposition which takes the following form:

God either exists or not.

#If God does not exist and you do not not believe in God, you gain the freedom to do whatever you want without penalty.
#If God does exist and you do not believe in God, you are condemned to an eternity in hell.
#If God does not exist and you do believe in God, you will have wasted part of your life.
#If God does exist and you do believe in God, you will receive an eternity in heaven.

[[Blaise Pascal]] reasoned that, given the relative gains and losses for each scenario, the only sensible course for a rational human being was to believe in God since the potentially infinite gains and losses which occur if God exists outway the at most finite gains and losses if God does not exist, regardless of what probability one asigns to God's existence(as long as that probability is greater than 1). Pascal's wager as Pascal stated is inherently flawed within the context of Christianity, because within many forms of Christian theology, mere belief in God does not ensure salvation.

Pascal's wager becomes even more flawed if viewed by someone who has the choice of more beliefs, such as "God A Exists", "God B Exists", "No Gods Exits", and "All the Gods of Pantheon X Exist". How do you choose then?

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Panpsychism

2007-07-14T23:15:17Z

JoshuaZ: add detail

Panpsychism is a philosophy that everything in the world is alive, conscious and animated. More specifically, panpsychism claims that all things are self-aware, possessing some form of mind. Its leading proponent was [[Gottfried Leibniz]] (1646-1716).
[[category:philosophy]]

Galois fields

2007-07-14T02:57:09Z

JoshuaZ: link+clean up

In [[mathematics]] a Galois Field is a [[Field (mathematics)|field]] having a finite number of elements.

Galois fields are one of two types:

*The integers modulo a prime number ''p'', represented by Zp
*The polynomials with coefficients modulo a prime number ''p'' having operations modulo with an irreducible n-degree polynomial r(x), represented by Fp^n

A Galois field with q=p^n elements is typically denoted by GFq or Fq.
[[category:mathematics]]

Ammon

2007-07-13T15:46:33Z

JoshuaZ: start stub

'''Ammon''' Hebrew '''עַמּוֹן''' were people living east of the [[Jordan river]] who according to [[Genesis]] were descended from [[Abraham]]'s nephew [[Lot]]. The main kingdom was east of [[Gilead]]. While the ancient Hebrews regarded the Ammonites as closely related, the two groups were frequently at war and conflict with the Ammonites was one reason the Hebrews decided to form a unified kingship under [[Saul]](See 1 Samuel 11 and 12). It is not clear what happened to the Ammonites although comments by [[Justin Martyr]] indicate that some group identified as Ammonite existed until as late as the first century A.D.