for your information, i'm absolutely not in the virtual reality (vr) headset business, but take it from me, you should get one.
soon all the press will be using vr to tell stories, so get prepared for extraordinary experiences using your vr headset and your smart phone.
“virtual reality!
I don't even know what this involves. A headset - is that like goggles?
I remember Ray Kurzweil predicting that we would all use a Internet glasses by now. That didn't happen - yet. Is that like this?
The singularity may be postponed rather than cancelled.
https://books.google.at/books?id=ttnrzxcvggyc&pg=pa162&lpg=pa162&dq=p38+papyrus+michigan&source=bl&ots=iwzmjy4bmu&sig=lpsfa1rd31f4d-olxunuztjhuqg&hl=de&sa=x&ved=0ahukewiek-eh3cvqahvcfhokhzkgdagq6aeistak#v=onepage&q=p38%20papyrus%20michigan&f=false.
i recommend to read the introduction (free preview) at google preview containing stuff about.
- early text and original text p3- papyri and early text- classifying early papyri readings- text quality - earl text a free text?- transmission quality- public and privat copies- textal and scribal culture- book trade in the roman empire.
Thanks for the video. I can understand some German but the German in this video is quite difficult for me probably because of the technical language.
You are right JWs have no good explanation why they accept the canon of the fourth century church without accepting the authority or validity of the church. They don't mention here either (maybe they do elsewhere) that it was Athanasius who is regarded as supplying the first complete canonical list as now accepted in his Easter letter 367 AD.
What draws you to textual criticism? Personally I find it fascinating, also the nomina sacra and books on paleography and the codex.
being in a jw family while not being a jw yourslef is pretty hard.
to them, you're just as good as dead because all unbelievers will be eternally destroyed at armageddon.
this problem exists in many other religions.. i once had a friend from work tell me that she wanted me to become a christian like her because if i didn't, i would burn in hell for all eternity.
I have tended to think this way. It even seems obvious that God is not bound by petty notions of doctrine and right practice. He must be above all that. But I've become wary of "obvious" things. So then it also occurs to me that there are other possibilities too. For example the idea that God must be good is culturally specific. The ancient gods were not good, they were capricious and looked out for themselves. Another possibility is that God is good in a sense that we cannot understand. There are perhaps yet more possibilities we can't even imagine.
I like the Kingdom of Heaven quote. But it makes me suspicious because I like it. It somehow forces God to be a liberal, enlightened version of a deity made in man's image. Isn't that a bit too convenient? What if God is so completely other that we cannot describe in terms of personality, goodness, or even action? When we presume to say anything positively about God we presume a lot.
there are many on this site that do not believe that jehovah truly exists; that he is not a real being.
but, he is as real as next breath you draw into your nostrils.. some of you say that there is no evidence that he exists.
yet, none of you can prove that he does not exits.. cofty, (you come to mind), i appreciate that you have stated, without reservation, that you do not believe that god exists.. yet, you cannot prove it.. hope in jehovah..
Pale emperor, when nicolaou says JWs are Christians he doesn't mean it as a compliment to JWs, he means it as an insult to Christianity.
It's a pretty odd thing to insist upon for an atheist anyway, and was never explained what the criteria is supposed to be: historical, practice, theology? Or if any group that self-identifies as Christian could ever be disqualified by the proposed criteria.
there are many on this site that do not believe that jehovah truly exists; that he is not a real being.
but, he is as real as next breath you draw into your nostrils.. some of you say that there is no evidence that he exists.
yet, none of you can prove that he does not exits.. cofty, (you come to mind), i appreciate that you have stated, without reservation, that you do not believe that god exists.. yet, you cannot prove it.. hope in jehovah..
Maybe existence and non-existence are not categories that apply to God.
Or if Jehovah is a being beyond being maybe we could say he exists and does not exist.
there are many on this site that do not believe that jehovah truly exists; that he is not a real being.
but, he is as real as next breath you draw into your nostrils.. some of you say that there is no evidence that he exists.
yet, none of you can prove that he does not exits.. cofty, (you come to mind), i appreciate that you have stated, without reservation, that you do not believe that god exists.. yet, you cannot prove it.. hope in jehovah..
Have you ever considered that maybe Jehovah is real because he does't exist?
so recently, my jw wife asks me if i ever considered taking up a cause.it was a question out of the blue, coming off of a discussion about politics.
so while it was unsaid, she was really getting at whether i was considering being politically active in some way.. i already have a standard answer that i have used before with other people, so i said it.
"no, i will be content to work and get by then retire and sit in the sun with a good book and a cold water.
Is your wife maybe interested in taking up a cause herself?
I knew some sisters in the congregation who were animal crazy and had some involvement with animal charities. Not much, but still unusual for JWs.
https://books.google.at/books?id=ttnrzxcvggyc&pg=pa162&lpg=pa162&dq=p38+papyrus+michigan&source=bl&ots=iwzmjy4bmu&sig=lpsfa1rd31f4d-olxunuztjhuqg&hl=de&sa=x&ved=0ahukewiek-eh3cvqahvcfhokhzkgdagq6aeistak#v=onepage&q=p38%20papyrus%20michigan&f=false.
i recommend to read the introduction (free preview) at google preview containing stuff about.
- early text and original text p3- papyri and early text- classifying early papyri readings- text quality - earl text a free text?- transmission quality- public and privat copies- textal and scribal culture- book trade in the roman empire.
I've got this book. It does tend to present a rather conservative view of textual criticism and they are on the optimistic end of the spectrum in terms of the stability and faithfulness of the early transmission of the NT.
The other end of the spectrum is Brat Ehrman who argues that the text of the NT was corrupted at a very early stage before the text is well attested in the manuscript tradition.
But my favourite scholar on textual criticism is David Parker who is one of those who argue now that it is misguided to view the "original" text of the NT as the ultimate goal of textual scholarship. Instead he argues that texts are always fluid and their dynamism should be explored rather than tamed by dubious static notions of originality and corruption.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Text-Gospels-Parker/dp/0521599512/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Testament-Manuscripts-their-Texts-x/dp/0521719895/
the wt march 2017, p.11, par.
13 quotes ephesians 4:8 as saying, "the bible refers to them as 'gifts in men.
however, the org's own kingdom interlinear translation (and every other bible translation) gives a truthful translation of the verse: .
The 21st Century New Testament -Literal/Free Dual Translation by JW Vivian Capel can be counted on to agree with the NWT when no other does.
Ephesians 4:8
Free: It is as the scripture says: "He ascended on high and led many prisoners captive, giving men as gifts".
Literal: Through which he is saying: "Having gone up into a height he led captive captivity, and he gave gifts in the men".
No footnote or explanation.
Edgar Foster recently referred to the verse on his blog.
the wt march 2017, p.11, par.
13 quotes ephesians 4:8 as saying, "the bible refers to them as 'gifts in men.
however, the org's own kingdom interlinear translation (and every other bible translation) gives a truthful translation of the verse: .
Interestingly the Targum of Psalm 68 reverses the receive/give order:
"You, prophet Moses, ascended to the firmament, you took captives captive,
you learnt/taught the words of the Law and gave them as gifts to the children of men."
Taken from a full discussion of the verse here.
https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings/index.cgi?a=490
