He was on Letterman in the 1980s and said his name means “black plowman”.
630 karma · joined October 17, 2010
The word “magi” is plural for “magus” which means “astrologer”. In the Bible, God condemned all forms of astrology or similar “fortune telling” (e.g. see Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Thus, these astrologers were not some sort of God-ordained “wise men” as many believe. The “star” the astrologers initially followed was for the purpose of leading them and the child to King Herod, who planned to kill the child. God eventually intervened though to foil what was initially an evil plan.
https://i.imgur.com/3Wle9Te.png
And FWIW, if you put a "www" in front of the URL, the error doesn't occur.
> SpotifAI is a system that uses deep learning to automatically create playlists from user-submitted playlists. Its algorithm has been trained on millions of playlists from Spotify.
Which is pretty cool sounding and has a cool name.
My suggestion is to not remove the letters as they’re typed. It’s very jarring and unusable that way. You should just “disable” the used ones and keep them in the same place.
Also, is there a way to remove letters from the play area after they’re used? Or start from a clean slate without refreshing the page?
But that’s also true of Rogan. His show’s clips get way more views than those other networks.
https://www.instagram.com/sparkleforesst/
AFAIK, it's that girl who runs the channel, she's the same person that appears in the merch ads in the videos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Legal_issues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson#Recalls_an...
And please don’t take this as “whataboutism”. I’m just making sure you’re consistent in your criticisms.
> All clinical trials suffer from risks of bias in their design and conduct, as assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool that assesses trial biases with the grades of “some concern, low, moderate, high, or serious”. Although one group of authors has assessed many of the trials as having moderate to severe risks of bias, performing meta-analyses of these trials can more accurately detect the true effects despite individual trial biases. Multiple groups, including ours, have performed meta-analyses of these trials, with all groups finding consistent benefits amongst the trials. In fact, the consistency of trial results from both sets of randomized and observational controlled trials from varied centers and countries and trial sizes and disease phases lend even more validity to the estimates of benefit.
[1) https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/faq-o...
Then you’re not looking hard enough. You don’t think endless booster shots are an incentive to dismiss Ivermectin? Discouraging Ivermectin means, not billions, but trillions in revenue.
And that’s not even considering the fact that the vaccines could never be legally approved for emergency use if Ivermectin works.
You're attaching a lot of weight to a lot of different historical viewpoints. Of course you can find different sects of Jews with different canons. You can find different sects of Jews doing a lot of strange things including committing mass suicide.
However, the majority of the most recognized scholars and historians of the first few centuries C.E. do not consider the so-called apocryphal books as part of the Bible canon. Josephus, Jerome, Councils at Laodicea and Chalcedon, as well as numerous church Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Melito, Origen, Hilary, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzus, Rufinus of Aquileia) testify to the closing of the canon outside of the apocryphal books.
> We know that many Greek-speaking early Christians accepted some of the pre-Christian Greek "apocryphal"/"deuterocanonical" works as canonical. Why did they do that?
It doesn't matter. A lot of your arguments hinge on finding obscure debates and controversies. So what if there was controversy among some? The general consensus, however, disagrees with those debates and controversies and finds them irrelevant.
> The canon did change. In the middle of the second century CE, the Pharisees still had multiple canons
You mean the same Pharisees about whom the the Jew, Jesus Christ, said: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)
> And, if we consider other Jewish groups such as the Sadducees or the Qumran community, we find even more Jewish canons than that.
Again, do you mean the Sadducees whom Jesus and many first century Jews condemned? It's irrelevant to even consider any canon that contradicts the most well respected historians and scholars of those time periods. You refer to them as "canons" but they are no such thing. The Hebrew canon was well established by the time of Josephus and only a few obscure sources contradict that.
> And why do you dismiss it as 'some so-called "debate"'? It was a real debate, you can read the Mishnah for yourself
I dismiss it because it's irrevelant. In fact, it's about as relevant as you and I having this debate right now, because neither you or I can change the fact that the canon was well established before the 1st century CE.
> All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.
You want me to take seriously a document that says that?
> Furthermore, this passage gives evidence that the same debate was active in the 1st century CE as well (and possibly even the 1st century BCE too), through Rabbi Shimon's reference to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.
Yes, it was very active -- among people who had no say in the matter and whose opinions didn't mean a whole lot until we decided to throw 20th century criticism into the mix.
And that's besides the fact that even if there was some so-called "debate" about it, if the canon didn't actually change as a result of those debates (e.g. Song of Songs and Eccl. are part of the canon), then how can you say it wasn't fixed? I mean, that's just silly.
> Although there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed, some scholars hold that the Hebrew canon was established well before the first century AD – even as early as the fourth century BC, or by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BC). The modern Hebrew canon does not include the seven deuterocanonical books, and this was the basis for excluding them from the Protestant Old Testament.
And:
> Since the 16th century, most Protestant churches have accepted only works in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as the canonical Old Testament, and hence classify all the non-protocanonical books from the Septuagint as apocrypha.
Those two points more or less support the points I'm making. Of course much of this is debatable, I'm not denying that, but I think the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.
If that's the case, then any argument that predates Jesus in favour of the Deuterocanon would also be invalid.
> I'm not sure why you think that is relevant?
My argument against the Septuagint is relevant because it's often used as an example of why the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the Bible canon. The Septuagint is a direct translation of the Hebrew books (i.e. what would eventually become the Hebrew canon). If the Hebrew canon (even if it was just a loose canon at that time) never included the Deuterocanonical books, then there is no reason to assume the Septuagint would suddenly include them in its first copies.
> Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical?
No, of course not. I provided a body of evidence against the Deuterocanon. This is just one part of that argument. The argument is strengthened by all the points, not just one of them.
> Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical?
No. Again, same as above. The point alone isn't extremely meaningful until you consider all the evidence.
> And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals.
I think the key word there is "believe". Unless a writer says something along the lines of 'the prophet says...' then the argument is weak at best.
> This is inaccurate, look at the historical record:
Well, according to Wikipedia: "Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon."
So it's certainly debatable, but there's much evidence to support what I said, as far as I can see.
> Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon.
Examples: Tobit claims to have seen events in his lifetime that cover more than 250 years, but Tobit 14:1-3 says he died at 102 years of age. Judith contains geographical oddities that can't be resolved except with miraculous assumptions. Ecclesiasticus 25:33 blames Eve for human sin instead of Adam, which contradicts Apostle Paul's writings. Baruch says the Jewish exile would last '7 generations', contradicting the Bible canon which says it would be 70 years. That's just a small sampling.
As someone else pointed out, I'm not talking about every individual church as a separate 'Christian church', I'm referring to the primary denominations, so Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox would be two churches. Most of the rest do not accept those books as part of the Bible canon.
> And I don't agree that the reasons you give are valid – in some places I think you have the facts wrong, or are presenting them in a biased way.
When it comes to religion, every view is biased. But that's ok if a view is correct. I'm looking at the facts based on what happened prior to all the offshoots of Christianity (including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ).
The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon.
> I don't think this site is the best place to debate it in detail,
I think it's fine if we remain civil.
> but you can find numerous works by Catholic and Orthodox writers rebutting the arguments you make.
They are just as biased as I am. But like I said, I'm not looking at any denominational argument, I'm only looking at the facts of history prior to ~300 CE.