ImpressiveWebs

The books of the Deuterocanon are not viewed as canonical by most Christian churches for a number of valid reasons:

* They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books

* There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint

* Historian Josephus made clear that those books were not part of the canon

* Not one New Testament writer quoted from the Deuterocanon

* Early church fathers did not consider them part of the Bible canon

* John Wycliffe, a catholic who included these books in his translation, still did not consider them of the same authority as the rest

* Even the council of Trent did not accept all the “apocryphal” books (e.g. 1 and 2 Esdras were excluded)

* The content of the books testifies against themselves with their inaccuracies, contradictions, and other problems that are not found in the traditional Bible canon

Not sure if you realize this but you didn't post the link anywhere. You might want to delete this and post it again.

Sorry for the late rely. HN doesn’t make it easy to see comment replies.

You’re misunderstanding what I said and you’ve got it backwards. Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said “Gehenna”, not literally. The eternal fire was not literal and Gehenna was not literal. It’s a symbol for eternal destruction.

The reason he mentioned the worm is because the Jews at that time understood that the worm would eat dead bodies in the literal Gehenna. Jesus was pointing out that their future death would be eternal with no hope of a resurrection if they continued down a certain spiritual path.

Also, please look up the verses I cited previously. The symbolic understanding of Gehenna is in agreement with those other verses where God clearly does not condone burning people, let alone burning them eternally.

Also, there is no place in the Bible that says that the “soul” will reside in hell forever, separate from the body. The whole person gets thrown in Gehenna, which is pointed out in the context of the verse you cited (see verses 43 to 47).

On a related note, let's clear up a few things...

Myth: The "soul" is something separate from the body.

Fact: The soul being a separate entity from the physical body did not come from Judaism or Christianity. In Genesis 2:7, the first man "became" a soul (Hebrew "Nephesh"[1]), he was not "given" a soul. The Old Testament teaches that the "soul" is the whole person. The Bible uses the word "soul" in reference to both humans and animals (Genesis chapter 1 and Revelation both do this). The Old Testament also teaches that the soul can die. See Ezekiel 18:4, 20.

Myth: Hell is a fiery place of torment to punish those who reject God.

Fact: There is no word "hell" in the original writings of the Bible. This was a later development. The idea that God punishes people for all eternity, essentially making him worse than Hitler, is not found in the Bible. In multiple places the Old Testament says that God does not condone burning your children in fire. See Jeremiah 7:31; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chronicles 28:3; Deuteronomy 12:29-31 for a few examples. When the New Testament speaks about "eternal fire", these are symbols or illustrations to demonstrate eternal destruction of the evil ones, not literal torment. Also, the place that Jesus said people would go for this "eternal fire" was called "Gehenna"[2] (not Hell) which in those days was just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

Myth: The Devil's name is Lucifer.

Fact: The word "Lucifer"[3] comes from the Latin translation of Isaiah 14:12. It's simply a word that means "shining one", a word that was used to describe the King of Babylon at that time, not the Devil. The King's fall is similar to that of the Devil, but the Devil in the Bible is never referred to as "Lucifer".

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5315/kjv/wlc/0-1/

[2] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1067/kjv/tr/0-1/

[3] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h1966/kjv/wlc/0-1/

I was just coming to Hacker News to see if this was just me. Every browser I tried and every Amazon I tried (.com, .ca, co.uk) had the same result.

> Prosecutors Stephen Heymann and Carmen Ortiz didn't dispute that Aaron was allowed to access the articles he retrieved. Rather, they said that the WAY he accessed them (using a script instead of clicking on links) was a terms-of-service violation and hence a crime.

I'm sorry, but isn't that a major oversimplification of what he did?

Nice. Are ads the only means of monetization? Do you mind if I ask about how much this brings in?

Thanks! That's interesting, because I spoke to tech support at the hosting company for the server and the person I chatted with did not seem to know this was a "Core dump".

Google doesn’t want people to find alternative sources for news, healthcare, and politics. They now force all the mainstream sources to the top, regardless of whether the search terms entered have any relation to the actual results. And this seems to have carried over to other subjects as well, because I can never find obscure pages any more.

This should destroy Google, but for some reason it doesn’t, and it baffles me that they are still surviving in this.

If it helps, I did a paid review of Snyk in a recent issue of my newsletter:

https://mailchi.mp/webtoolsweekly/web-tools-394

It’s a good tool, and from what I can tell, the free version is probably enough for most small teams or sole developers. The main benefit of the paid plans seems to be the scanning on private repos and the unlimited tests for 10+ developers. But like I said, the free plan is plenty to work with.

What a ridiculous dispute. One of the IP lawyers quoted in the article nailed it:

> “Clearly you’re not going to pay someone to buy artwork that you never intend to use.”

Oh haha... I misread it. It was 4:51. I've never actually read the book, so I just had a brain fart on the title.

I happen to click at exactly 4:50 and it was a photo of the cover of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 450. Well played.

Again, z-index is so rarely used and if you needed overflow hidden for something other than floats, then you were doing your CSS wrong. I’m not saying that to be arrogant, I’ve written books on CSS and written articles for some of the biggest web dev sites online. It’s just true that many developers don’t understand CSS and often use the wrong tool for the right job, so to speak.

Not true at all, especially in modern CSS. Position relative is only needed for using absolute positioning. That should be extremely rare.

And overflow: hidden is an old workaround for float-based layouts that should never be used in 2020 unless you’re debugging a legacy project. And even in that case, you should be using a proper clearfix instead.

I actually wrote about this 10 years ago, but mine was with just anchors and some CSS2:

https://www.impressivewebs.com/javascript-content-switcher-w...

Same overall principle with even deeper old browser support.

From my experience, search engines will not index the “hash” variants as separate pages. It will all be considered one page.

Yeah that can’t be right. [There’s also the w3c version of the spec](https://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/) but I don’t see anything about that there either.

The only thing that might be true is that it’s essentially a frozen feature set, with nothing new being planned, but again I don’t see a mention of that.

When I click to “read book” on iOS, I don’t see any boom content other than the title page. Is this a mobile glitch?

Just read the docs:

> If `compareFunction` is not supplied, all non-undefined array elements are sorted by converting them to strings and comparing strings in UTF-16 code units order. For example, "banana" comes before "cherry". In a numeric sort, 9 comes before 80, but because numbers are converted to strings, "80" comes before "9" in the Unicode order.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

This is a bit of a self plug, but I do a weekly newsletter called Tech Productivity that features articles and tools on being more productive:

https://techproductivity.co/

I find tons of good articles on procrastination and similar subjects. I don’t recall any specific examples now, but you can view all previous issues starting here:

https://mailchi.mp/techproductivity/78

Just change the number in the URL (77, 76, etc) to view previous issues. I’m sure you’ll find lots of good articles and maybe a tool or two that can help you out. Hope that helps!

That’s not unminus, this is:

https://www.unminus.com/

The person who posted this link claims it's a "Zoom Competitor" with the title. I don't necessarily think Brave believe it's a direct competitor.

> Some people hold strong opinions on the matter; advice columnist Ann Landers said that the subject was the most responded to (15,000 letters in 1986) and controversial issue in her column's history.

I guess that’s what people did before raging on Twitter.

Nice job on the comprehensiveness of this.

Seems to be missing the Black Scorpion, a gimmick of the Horsemen and Ric Flair in the early 90s.

This was genuinely funny:

https://imgflip.com/i/3z00lt

I only scanned and did a page search for the word “transf”, but I couldn’t find anything in those articles recommending transfusions.

The main website is not on HTTPS. That doesn’t exactly instill confidence in the security of the product.

Just to be clear: He says it's not the ventilators themselves that are causing the harm, but the way they are configured. He believes they are causing pressure to the lungs that is making the situation worse for many patients.

I don’t disagree. Coronavirus is a factor in most if not all of those deaths. But the average age of those who have died in Italy is about 78. Thats the average! Clearly there’s much more going on with these cases, even if Coronavirus is technically shortening their lives.