text:
Why I Don't Believe the Resurrection Happened.
There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, because I believe that supernatural/miraculous claims require supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. The second reason is because the only supposed evidence that we do have, the canonical New Testament resurrection narratives are errant. Let me explain my two reasons here in greater detail. But, before doing so, I must explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I operate under, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence.
The Natural and the Supernatural
I believe that the only honest way of conducting investigations for any historian is use to what is known as the "critical-historical" method. We must use the tools of critical history when assessing claims about the past and events that are recorded in works claiming to narrate history. The critical-historical method must be based on what I call the "Principle of Uniformity". This principle states that the universe operates today in very much the same way as it operated yesterday and will operate tomorrow. The laws of physics will operate the same today as they did yesterday and will operate tomorrow. Each event in our life has a natural cause, is governed by natural laws, and is contingent upon the physical world of cause and effect. When I go to read a newspaper describing today's events, I assume that the laws of motion and gravity work today as they did yesterday and the day before and since the world began. If I go to read the Histories of Herodotus or any of the works of Livy, I assume that these same laws worked in their time and that they were subject to and contingent upon the same forms of matter and energy for their existence as I am today and I assume people will be tomorrow and the next day and as long as human being exist to observe the world around them in the indefinite future.
This axiom, that there is an objective world external to me and that it operates in a orderly and uniform fashion, is what I use when I study history, science, or philosophy. This principle of uniformity is to me a necessary axiom that underlies all scientific, historical, and philosophical study. It underlies all rationality and to exercise any rational judgment or use of reason necessarily relies on this principle. This axiom, the principle of uniformity, is one that I assume a priori in my approach to studying history but it must be recognized that it is an axiom that is probabilistic in nature. That is, the principle of uniformity is about the uniformity of probability. The sun rose from my vantage point, today, as it did yesterday and as it will do tomorrow. The probability that the earth will continue to revolve around the sun, creating the appearance of sunrise has the same probability of happening tomorrow as it did today, as it did yesterday. Likewise, the laws of gravity, inertia, motion, thermodynamics, enthalpy, and other physical laws that govern the operation of our cosmos, have the same probability of operating today as they did yesterday, years ago, from eternity past as they will tomorrow and forevermore into the future. Likewise, I attribute history to the actions of men, whether individually or collectively, acting upon their nature as human beings, with their nature contingent upon the processes that operate in this world and the laws that govern these processes. Thus the founding of the United States of America, to me is an event that I attribute solely to the actions of mere men acting collectively as I do the founding of the Roman Republic, Egyptian dynasties, the victories of certain battles fought in war. None of this do I attribute to the actions of any divine, angelic, or spiritual beings.
I should point out that I do not rule out the possibility of the "supernatural" or the "miraculous" but I do feel that it is necessary for me to define what I mean. What I mean by "supernatural" is an entity or beings of some sort that are alleged to exist, whose existence is not subject to or contingent upon the physical cosmos, it's processes or the laws that govern these processes. These beings/entities are believed to transcend the physical cosmos and their existence is believed to be independent of the cosmos and was not caused by anything in the cosmos. I take "supernatural" to refer to any causal agent whose existence is not dependent or contingent upon the cosmos, it's laws, properties, and processes, and lacks the material composition (such as being made up of atoms or molecules, for instance). I assume that most, if not all, supernatural beings are conscious and intelligent beings and are meant to be understood as such. I therefore take any supernatural explanations as explanations involving these causal, conscious beings. I don't see the logical necessity of the principle of uniformity of ruling out the existence of anything regarded as "supernatural".
Supernatural Claims and Supernatural Evidence
However, I do operate on a further axiom: that claims being made about history need evidence in proportion to the strength of any such claims being made. If a chemist tells me that a certain chemical reaction that he can perform in the laboratory has a natural cause such as individual atoms exchanging electrons in their outer valence shells, with the addition of chemical energy to affect this change and set it into motion, I can accept it. Such a chemical reaction has a perfectly natural explanation to it and I take it as axiomatic that we live in an objective, real world, which is governed by laws of motion, inertia, gravity, enthalpy, and thermodynamics, and that the material composition of this world consists of atoms, the particles that make up atoms, and the ways that atoms combine to form molecules, ions, molecular and ionic compounds. Atomic theory provides an explanation for why this world operates as it does and helps to understand why we observe these physical laws operating the way that we do. These laws were discovered and atomic theory and molecular kinetic theory were proposed and experimentally verified based on the principle of uniformity. These are natural laws (gravity, inertia, thermodynamics, enthalpy, motion), natural processes (chemical reactions, physical systems undergoing change), natural causes (atoms exchanging electrons, chemical bonds dissolving and new ones forming) which operate in our world with uniform probability.
Consequently, supernatural claims require supernatural forms of evidence. If I was told by a friend of mine that my friend saw a being coming out of the sky and claiming that it was "Ahura-Mazda" (the Zoroastrian god of light) and that it had a warning that a nuclear war was going to happen in the year 2015 between the United States and Iran and that it could be averted if all Americans in the state of California prayed to Ahura-Mazda asking that it be averted, I would be skeptical of my friend telling me this. This is a supernatural claim being made by my friend and it would be indeed, be in need of supernatural evidence to verify it. I would assume that my friend was under some kind of delusion or sincerely mistaken unless I had reason to question my friend's honesty. I would have to verify that my friend was being honest somehow and not lying. If I could rule out the possibility of dishonesty, I would have to investigate the possibility of sincere delusion and investigate many different causes and sources for my friend's delusion. Is my friend under the influence of some intoxicating substance? Is my friend going insane, perhaps the sad victim of a hallucinatory mental disease? Is my friend's mind being affected somehow by an external cause such as radiation, poison, or some substance that is causing my friend to hallucinate and seriously believe that a Persian deity visited him with this apocalyptic message?
Ruling out natural causes of these sorts would not impel me to believe that a supernatural cause is responsible for it. If I concluded that all known natural causes that I could conceive of were not plausible, I would have to seriously consider investigating the possibility that my friend was the subject of a prank of some sort. Perhaps my friend was fooled by a very clever and sophisticated prank. My question would be the source of this deliberate delusion caused by pranksters. Perhaps my friend saw a vision of what appeared to be "Ahura-Mazda" but was fooled by some kind of very advanced holographic projection system. Perhaps my friend's drink was drugged or my friend was hypnotized by someone or multiple people acting in concert. Maybe someone is trying to convince my friend that s/he is going crazy and these people are working to have my friend committed- what better way than to have my friend convinced that s/he was the recipient of a divine message? But if I was to rule out the possibility of delusion whether by natural or human means, I'd then have to consider the possibility that my friend is suffering a delusion that is paranormal in origin. If the cause is not natural or human, then perhaps it is superhuman in some sense. Perhaps my friend is being subjected to testing by alien visitors who are doing experiments on human brains for their scientific curiosity, or perhaps it is a mean or amusing prank being carried out by alien visitors who are infatuated with the idea of making human beings think that they're crazy.
In order for me to believe that a supernatural agent, whether a divine being, an angelic being, or some other kind of supernatural agent is responsible for my friend believing that s/he is a divine messenger, I would have to have a supernatural form of evidence for it. If Ahura-Mazda revealed himself/herself/itself to my friend, I would have to have this same deity reveal himself/herself/itself to me and persuade me that s/he/it revealed him/her/itself to my friend. I would, of course, demand that I be supplied evidence of some sort that I wasn't, myself, hallucinating in some way or that I wasn't the victim of a prank or scientific experiment. But if I was to receive such a "revelation", I would seek to confirm that it really took place. I would write up the event as I believe I experienced it and I would submit it to scientists, historians, and philosophers, to Skeptics and skeptical organizations and scientific organizations. I would submit such a report to the Scientific Community for the Investigation of the Paranormal and I would ask that any such supernatural being reveal him/her/itself to these scientific and skeptical organizations and be willing to provide any such proofs that they request of him/her/it that I would. I would ask that any such being be willing to provide adequate proofs of some sort that I and others are, indeed, the subjects of any supernatural revelation.
This axiom, that supernatural claims require supernatural forms of evidence, is a necessary axiom for the critical study of history in my opinion. If I read Livy's history of the founding of Rome and I read that Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus, who had the Roman deity Mars as their father, I will indeed be skeptical of such a claim. The claim is a supernatural claim and unless Romulus, Remus, Mars, or any other Roman deity appears to me and to modern historians and experts of Roman history and provides supernatural evidence that Romulus and Remus, did, indeed, found Rome as a city, I will not believe it. I find it more credible to believe the naturalistic explanations provided by modern historians specializing in Roman history such as what I read in The Roman Republic by historian Michael Crawford. Likewise, when I read Homer's epic poem The Iliad, I see no reason to believe that Apollo really did come down from heaven or that he was inflicting ills upon the Achaeans. Such is a supernatural claim and requires supernatural forms of evidence to validate it. I would need Apollo or even Zeus to reveal themselves to me and confirm it for me with supernatural evidence and why not set the record straight and validate the story according to Homer for all the rest of the Greek historians and classics scholars alive today?
This is one of the chief reasons I disbelieve that miracles have occurred in history. If I read in the New Testament that Jesus rose from the dead, that he was transfigured on a mountain in front of his disciples, that he walked on water, that he raised Jairus' daughter or that he healed folks who were blind, I see no reason to believe that such events occurred because they are supernatural events and to claim such events occurred requires supernatural forms of evidence to validate them. Thus I assign a mixture of natural and human causes to events in history where human forces are at work and operation. The founding of nations, empires, the writings of books, the battles fought, the wars won, I attribute entirely to human and natural causes. To claim that Moses really did receive two stone tablets from Yahweh, that an angel really did appear to Mohammed, or that Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus or that the Virgin Mary did appear to people at Fatima are supernatural claims that require supernatural forms of evidence to validate them. If Yahweh really did appear to Moses, then for me to believe that this happened, I would require that Yahweh appear to me as well and provide me with supernatural evidence that he really does exist and really did appear to Moses. If an angel from Allah really did reveal himself to Mohammed, then that is a supernatural claim in need of supernatural evidence to validate it. Why doesn't Allah himself appear to me, or likewise, send an angel to me to provide me with supernatural evidence that s/he/it really did appear to Mohammed. That Jesus Christ appeared to Saul of Tarsus is a supernatural claim and I would have to have supernatural evidence to validate such as the risen Jesus appearing to me to provide supernatural evidence for this claim. Likewise, the same is true for the Virgin Mary appearing at Fatima, Romulus and Remus founding Rome, Moses receiving tablets from Yahweh, or Ahura-Mazda appearing to Zoroaster in any visions he might have had.
I don't see any miracles happening today. Nor do I have any evidence that miracles happened yesterday nor do I have any evidence a miracle will happen tomorrow. That any miracles happened is a supernatural claim requiring supernatural evidence to validate it. I do not believe that miracles are impossible nor do I believe that they are violations of any natural laws that govern our cosmos. Laws will operate as they normally do under certain conditions which have to be met and in my experience are daily met. If I observe a apple fall from a tree and hit the ground, I assume that is because of the law of gravity. If I see an apple fall from a tree and I swoop it with my hand and stop if from falling to the ground, I have not violated the law of gravity. The intervention of my hand changed the boundary conditions in which the law of gravity operates. I merely altered the conditions in which gravity affects the motion of the apple. The alteration in the conditions was intelligently caused by me. Now if an alien visitor were to use some kind of means to make an apple stop in mid-air once it fell from a tree so that it didn't hit the ground, perhaps using some kind of energy or mechanism that I am not aware of, I would simply conclude that the alien visitor had used an energy source or mechanism that altered the conditions in which the law of gravity operates under and stopped it from happening. The law of gravity wasn't violated by any means; the conditions under which it normally operates, were altered by intelligent causation.
If a deity or angelic being were to intervene in the course of history and cause something to happen that would have no ordinary, natural cause, then we can conclude that a miraculous event happened and it is in need of a supernatural explanation. This would not be a violation of natural law, if a supernatural being such as a god or an angel altered the conditions by which a law operates and changed the conditions so that the law doesn't operate in a certain circumstance at a particular time and place as it normally would if the conditions by which the law operates had remained unfettered and uninterrupted. But that such an alteration in the conditions by which natural laws operate has occurred, being intelligently caused by a supernatural agent, is a supernatural claim requiring supernatural forms of evidence. I have never seen one happen all of my life and so I conclude with a uniform degree of probability that such, in all likelihood has not happened, and probably will not happen. I have not seen any miraculous events in my life yet I have heard some miraculous claims but never the miraculous forms of evidence needed to verify them. I have heard several supernatural claims in my life, but never seen the supernatural events in my life, their causal agents, nor have I ever been supplied with supernatural evidence that they have, indeed, occurred as claimed.
This discussion is summarized by saying that I operate as a historian using the axiomatic principle of uniformity and it's corollary axiom: supernatural claims require supernatural forms of evidence.
The Resurrection is a Supernatural Event
The first reason I disbelieve that the resurrection happened is because supernatural/miraculous claims such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ would require supernatural/miraculous evidence today as well as from history. This, is something, I have never been presented with. I have never had any kind of revelation or theophany from the Christian God telling me that he is real and that he rose Jesus from the dead. If I was to have such a audio-visual theophany, in which God or the risen Jesus was to appear to me, face-to-face, this would be a step in the right direction or providing this standard or quality of evidence and meeting the epistemological requirement. Yet even if I did have such a theophany, God or the risen Jesus would have to somehow validate that what I am experiencing is, indeed, some authentic theophany or Christophany, and that I wasn't the victim of some kind hallucination (whether environmentally and chemically caused/induced) or that I wasn't the victim of some kind of deliberate hoax perpetrated very clever human beings or perhaps even extraterrestrial beings. Yet I have never had any kind of theophany/Christophany. I have never had one today or any other kind of supernatural/miraculous form of evidence.
Not only have I not been provided with such evidence today in the modern world but I have never been provided any such evidence from history. In the 1st century Mediterranean, we do have a number of historians, of differing quality. If the Supreme Being, and Almighty Creator of this universe did in fact raise Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the dead and the resurrection was an historical event- such a supernatural/miraculous event, being the greatest and most significant event in human history, would be thoroughly and exhaustively documented by the most widely-respected, top-notch, best educated, and highly trained historians of the day, being recorded with the highest caliber of critical inquiry in terms of historical documentation and narration. Yet I don't see any of this. I don't see historians on the scene during the life and ministry of Jesus Christ in ancient Palestine. I don't see historians following Jesus Christ around, documenting his miracles, recording his words, interviewing him personally, his disciples, the people who witnessed his miracles, his critics in the Jewish leadership, or any skeptics. I know of no attestation from the highest-ranking, world-class, reputable historians of antiquity, be they Jewish, Greek, Roman, religious and secular, providing a wealth of highly detailed, critically examined, detailed narration to provide the supernatural/miraculous evidence to verify such a claim. Where is such historical narration and documentation at? Where are such highest-ranking, world-class reputable, reliable, and honest historians who witnessed any such miracles of Jesus, witnessed and verified that he died of crucifixion, interviewing people present at such an event, witnessed the earthquake and tearing of the temple curtain, witnessing and verifying that he was indeed buried by Joseph of Arimathea and whoever might've helped Joseph, interviewing Joseph and whoever else was present, witnessing, describing, and interviewing the angels at the tomb, the women who came to the tomb that morning, witnessing, describing the empty tomb, interviewing anyone else at the tomb, the guards, Pilate, the disciples as they looked at the tomb. Why weren't any historians like these also witnessing, describing, and interviewing the risen Jesus, verifying that he was indeed Jesus and that he had indeed risen, witnessing, describing the meetings of Jesus with his disciples, conducting interviews, critically examining the witnesses, watching and documenting Jesus as he supposed ascended into heaven, and the meetings of the disciples and the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost?
Such historians could also write histories of early Christianity, witnessing the events as they unfolded, interviewing converts for reasons that they had converted, cross-examining them for their reliability and trustworthiness, interviewing skeptics to see if they were trying to make up excuses to rationalize away embarrassing observations. After all, if God had intervened and caused what was the greatest miracle of history, an historical event of such significant and profound consequence, never to have such a profound miracle duplicated to this very day, one would expect, as I do, as I submit any sane and rational person would, expect the highest caliber, world-class, honest and reputable historians of antiquity to witness, document, and exhaustively verify that all of this took place. I don't see why any sane and rational person would ask for anything less. But this is not what I have seen. I know of no such historians, their works, their histories, or any such documentation or narration of such an event. This would definitely be a step in the right direction towards providing supernatural/miraculous evidence if any such miracle occurred in the course of human history! What we have today is not at all the kind of profound critical history or documented narration in the kind of detail necessary to provide such supernatural/miraculous evidence.
What we have today are four canonical gospels. Each of the gospels are anonymous although names have been subsequently attached to them. Our gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not claim to be critical histories written by the highest-ranking, world-class, top-notch, best educated, reputable historians of antiquity, nor do the gospels discuss their methodology in any detail as such reputable historians would. No interviews of Jesus, his disciples, or anyone else is conducted, no reputable historians of any such high caliber is on the scene witnessing the resurrection of Jesus, the encountering of angels by women, or the disciples as they meet and gather around the risen Jesus. No interview of James, the brother of Jesus, or of Saul of Tarsus, before they converted, although they are fondly cited by Christian apologists as examples of a skeptic and enemy who were converted. No interviews or direct eyewitness descriptions by the actual authors. I have never read Matthew writing in his narrative "I, Matthew, a disciple of Jesus Christ, went to the tomb today, following the women where I saw them talking with angels". I have never read Luke as writing "I, Luke, was in the room with the disciples when Jesus came. I asked him if he was really there. Could he prove it to us and that we were not all imagining it or hallucinating?" John doesn't write "I was with Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved and Mary Magdalene came unto our house and she was crying and she told us that the body had been removed and I asked her if she had seen anyone at the tomb, perhaps the gardner or even any angels there?" I have never read John writing "There is another story in which Mary Magdalene and some of her companions went to the tomb and saw a vision of angels but when I interviewed her, she told Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved that the body had been taken and neither she or her companions knew where it has been taken to. I interviewed her and asked her why she had told me that she had seen a vision of angels and told Peter a different story. She then replied that she had serious doubts and didn't think anyone would believe her and so she decided to tell a story that sounded less crazy. This is the story that the body had been taken by the gardener".
The gospel authors don't say how they know that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus or how any of them knew that women watched as Joseph and any companions buried Jesus. They don't record any interviews that they might have conducted with Joseph of Arimathea, with Simon Peter, with Mary Magdalene, or Jesus himself. They don't say who they got their traditions from, how they were able to determine that their traditions were reliable, who witnessed the miracles that Jesus and his disciples allegedly performed if they did, not, themselves witnessed it. Was Mark on the scene when Jesus multiplied the fish and loaves of bread? If so, why didn't he say so in his gospel? Was Matthew on the scene watching as Jesus was transfigured along with Moses and Elijah? Why didn't Matthew personally identify himself as a eyewitness to such a miraculous event? Did John personally watch the water as it was being turned to wine at the wedding in Cana? Why did John write in it his gospel that he personally got to witness this? A bigger question, that I would like to ask, is this: why do we not have a gospel from Jesus himself? Why didn't Jesus write his own gospel, with his own words, teaching, narrating the miracles himself and what he said and did. Why don't we have a resurrection narrative from Jesus, detailing his meetings with the disciples in Galilee, Jerusalem, the women's encounter with angels, or showing himself to doubting Thomas. One would think that before he supposedly ascended into heaven, he would have more than enough time to write it in the 40 or so days from the eve of the first Easter Sunday until the time of his ascension. Imagine a gospel from the risen Jesus himself, from the perspective of the risen and exalted Christ, with his message for mankind, the gospel written out in detail, with instructions on how to be saved, how all believers everywhere are to pray, on what it means to have faith, what it means to have Jesus as one's Lord and Savior. This would be the gospel of all gospels, giving the needed evidence to verify that Jesus, did, indeed, write it as God's Son, the risen Messiah! Imagine what such a gospel would look like, would read like! The Christian God, Yahweh, could provide all the supernatural/miraculous evidence for anyone at all who ever needed any such evidence.
Yet I have never seen any evidence of this sort. No critical historiography in the New Testament writings, the gospel themselves, or any of the epistles, Acts, or Revelation. No such supernatural or miraculous evidence is provided. But Christian apologists believe otherwise. They might argue that the necessary supernatural and miraculous evidence need not be contained in any critical historiography in the New Testament corpus itself, in any of the gospels, epistles, any narration whatsoever. Christian apologists might argue that the New Testament is inerrant and its inerrancy is strong evidence of its divine inspiration and so the inerrancy should provide anyone with the necessary requirements of supernatural/miraculous evidence, surpassing any need for otherwise critical historiography or documentation from either biblical sources or extra biblical attestation. I reject the claim that the Bible, both Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament are inerrant documents of any kind. This is the second reason I reject the resurrection. I believe that the New Testament resurrection narratives, along with 1st Corinthians 15, are, juxtaposed together, are errant and fallible. Let me explain my reasoning here with examples.
The Resurrection Narratives
1.) Was the tomb rolled away before the women arrived as in Mark, Luke, or John, or after the women arrived as in Matthew. In Matthew 28:2, it says that there was an earthquake and that an angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone, apparently after all the women arrived. In Mark 16: 2-5, Mary Magdalene and her traveling companions wonder who will roll away the stone, on their way there and find the stone removed when they finally get there (verse 4). In Luke 24:2, the women arrive at the tomb and find the stone rolled away. In John 20:1-2, Mary Magdalene (and whoever else might've been with her) take one good look at the empty tomb and instantly run to get Peter (it doesn't even seem that they entered the tomb at all!) The usual inerrantist explanation for this is that in Matthew 28:2, the Greek word for "was" ("ginomai") in describing the earthquake is translated in the pluperfect sense. Inerrantists like Norman Geisler, the late Gleason Archer, and their cohorts regard the word "was" for the earthquake as being in the pluperfect sense so the verse is best understood as referring to an earthquake and descending angel rolling away the tomb before the women arrived. But there are serious problems with this "resolution". Thus they will argue that Matthew 28:2 should be read as the New American Standard Version or the New International Version translates it, such as the following:
"And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." (New American Standard Version). Thus Turkel, the late Archer, Geisler, and others will argue the earthquake had occurred while the women were on their way to the tomb, and would've been rolled away as they arrived. I have two major problems with this "resolution".
First of all, not all translations render the Greek word for "was" ("ginomai") as in "And behold, there was an earth, for an angel of the Lord descended..." Matthew 28:2, in the pluperfect sense. Some translations of the Bible, render the Greek word in simple past tense. I list some of the translations below:
"And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.(English Standard Version)
"And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it." (American Standard Version)
"And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of [the] Lord, descending out of heaven, came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." (Darby Translation)
In all of these versions, the Greek word for "was" ("ginomai") is not translated in the pluperfect sense. But more importantly, is the Greek word phrase kai idou, which is translated in many versions of the Bible as "And behold!" In Matthew 28:2, this word phrase modifies the statement that an earthquake occurred because of the descending angel who rolled away the tomb. In Matthew's gospel, word phrase "And behold" is used, and Matthew often uses it to state the occurrence of an event in the statement it is grammatically connected to, as having occurred after the events in the proceeding verse. Let's look at some examples of this here. I am going to go through a number of verses, each verse coming from three translations: the New American Standard Version, the English Standard Version, and the American Standard Version (from all three when applicable)
Matthew 3: 16
After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, New American Standard Version
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him-English Standard Version
I ask readers here- who would believe that the author was trying to narrate that the heavens were opened up and the "Spirit of God" descended upon Jesus before Jesus was baptized? No, the phrase "and behold ( "kai Idou" in Greek) modifies the second sentence to show the event occurring after the baptism and coming up and out from the water.
Matthew 4:11
Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him-New American Standard VersionThen the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him-English Standard VersionThen the devil leaveth him; and behold, angels came and ministered unto him-American Standard Version
I ask readers again- who would believe that the author was narrating the story here as to suggest that the angels came to Jesus and started ministering to him before the devil left him? No, again, the phrase "and behold" suggests that "angels came" and "ministered to him" occurred after the devil left him.
Matthew 8:24
And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep-New American Standard Version
And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep-English Standard VersionAnd behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the boat was covered with the waves: but he was asleep-American Standard Version
Here, "and behold" suggests that the great storm arose after Jesus and his followers had gotten into the boat and after Jesus had fallen asleep. I don't know of anyone who would seriously understand the author to be telling readers that the storm arose before Jesus and his followers got into the boat and Jesus dozed off.
Matthew 8:34
And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region-New American Standard VersionAnd behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region-English Standard Version
And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart from their border-American Standard Version
So, did "all the city" come out to meet Jesus and urge him to leave their region before Jesus performed the miracle? Nope. "And behold" modifies verse 34 as to suggest that the people in the city came out to meet Jesus and urge him to leave after Jesus performed the miracle spoken of in verse 33.
Matthew 17:3
And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him-New American Standard VersionAnd behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him
Did Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus and his three disciples went up to the mountain and watched as Jesus was transfigured? Or did it occur after Jesus took his followers up the mountain and was transfigured before them.
Matthew 26:51
And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear-New American Standard VersionAnd behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear-English Standard Version
And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear-American Standard Version
Did Peter draw his sword before Jesus was arrested? I don't think so! I believe that it was after Jesus was seized for the arrest that Peter drew up the sword and struck the slave of the high priest.
Matthew 27:51
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split-New American Standard Version
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split-English Standard Version
And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent-American Standard Version
Did the curtain of the temple tear in half, from top to bottom, before Jesus spoke his last words and die? Or was it after Jesus died, that the curtain tore into two from the top, downward?
Thus, we see from numerous cases that "And behold" modifies the sentence that it attaches to and the sentence which is modified, describes something as occurring, after the event in the previous verse in the gospel of Matthew. This was not always the case with the word "And behold" but there are a few exceptions in Matthew's gospel but Matthew 28:1-2, as I have tried here to show, parallels many of the instances where "And behold" (the Greek word Kai Idou) was used to chronologically link events in order. We can see this in verse 51 of chapter 27, which suggests that the curtain-tearing occurred after 26 which speaks of Jesus' death. We can see that verse 51 of chapter 26 describes Peter as cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant, after Jesus was arrested in verse 50. We can see verse three of chapter 17, in which those present with Jesus at his transfiguration saw Moses and Elijah, after Jesus was transfigured on the mountain in verse two. In verse 16 of chapter three, "and behold" attaches the rest of the verse "the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending..." to "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water" in a single verse. But since "the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending.." comes after the phrase "and behold" what are readers to conclude but that Matthew meant to say that the heavens opened up after Jesus was baptized and come out immediately from the water? I don't know of anyone who would conclude that Matthew's author meant that the heavens opened up and the Spirit descended on Jesus before he stepped into the water to be baptized.
Readers can then understand why I believe that Matthew 28:2 describes the earthquake and angelic descent as being after the women have arrived at the tomb. It's precisely because "and behold" modifies verse 2 as describing something after verse 1 as it does in the verse cases I have just cited above from different translations. I, therefore, conclude that a contradiction here exists!
2.) Did the women enter the tomb, encounter angels, remember the angels' words and then run back and convey them to the disciples as all of the synoptic gospels say or did Mary Magdalene and whoever was with her, run to tell the disciples that someone had stolen the body and she had no clue as to where it was as in John 20:1-2.
In Luke, chapter 24, we read the following:
1But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
4While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing;
5and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead?
6"He is not here, but He has risen Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,
7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
8And they remembered His words,
9and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
10Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
11But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.
12But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.
In this passage, the women went to the tomb, found the stone rolled away, encountered angels, they remembered what Jesus said, then departed to tell the disciples what happened. Verse 9 and 10 are of particular importance. The women "returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. In the next verse it says that "they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James.."
Further in the chapter, when Jesus is believed to be walking with the two men on the road to Emmaus, they said this to Jesus:
22"But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning,
23and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive."
So, in other words, Mary Magdalene and whoever went with her, successfully told them what they had seen. When the women told the eleven "all these things", that logically, then, includes "saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive", and verse 9 includes Mary Magdalene as one of them out of grammatical necessity here. The problem arises when we try and reconcile this with John 20: 1-2:
1Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
2So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
In these verses, Mary Magdalene runs (along with whoever may have been with her) to Simon Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him"
Mary Magdalene, then, hasn't seen any angels, hasn't gotten the message, and hasn't relayed the message in clear contradiction to verses 22-23. In fact, we can conclude that Mary Magdalene had not even entered into the tomb but instead arrived at it, took one good look at it, and then left in panic without even having entered into it. If she did enter into it as in the synoptics, particularly Luke, she would've encountered angels, came back with the message, and have told the disciples that they had seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. We can conclude therefore, that Mary Magdalene didn't even enter the tomb and sure as hell didn't encounter any angels. I'd like to see Jason resolve this.
3.) Were there Eleven disciples in the room on the first Easter Sunday in Jerusalem, to which Jesus appeared to (which would've included all the original disciples save doubting Thomas) or were there only ten as in John 20?
Recall, verse 9 from Luke 24 above. It says that the women told the Eleven what they had seen and heard. Yet in John we read a different story. We read this, in John 20: 19-24:
19So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."
20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
In verse 19, it says that on the first day of the week, when it was evening, Jesus came and stood among them, and verse 24 says that Thomas was not with them originally. Then why the hell does it say in Luke 24:9 that there were Eleven present?
Oh, I think I get it! Judas Iscariot rose from the dead as well! You see, Judas hung himself in Matthew's account, and God raised him from the dead after Jesus rose and Judas hung out with the disciples that very night (one of Luke's "eleven"), and then was present later when Thomas showed up (making Twelve as in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed) and then he fell later in the field and his guts spilled out all over the place! Poor Judas, he died, rose just for some cameo appearances of Jesus, only to pull a Humpty Dumpty and fall, to die again! I get it now! And what textual indicators would exist in the passage to indicate that this, indeed, was the case?
These are all explicit contradictions in the text that are impossible to resolve adequately without far-fetched plausibility scenarios, none of which are logical or remotely likely. Now, however lets shift gears and look at discrepancies which are implicit but nevertheless discrepancies.
4.) How many angels were there? Matthew and Mark record only one angel while Luke and John record two. Now the usual apologist quibble here is that Mark and Matthew only mentioned one but that doesn't rule out that another angel was simply present. But there is a problem here. When the angel in Matthew speaks, he speaks in a first person singular. He says "For I know what you are looking for". The problem? Many apologists are fond of pointing out that, for instance, Mary Magdalene wasn't alone in her trip to the empty tomb in John 20. They will point to the first person plural of what Mary Magdalene says in John 20:2, "For they have taken the body of the Lord and we don't know where they have put them" Thus, apologists are fond of saying, the text implies that more than one women was present! If this is the case, then, does that mean that the angel's use of first person singular in Matthew 28: 3 implies then, that only one angel was present? If not, why not?
5.) Did Jesus appear to the disciples first in Galilee or Jerusalem? Matthew and Mark imply that Jesus appeared to them in Galilee first while Luke and John. Jesus appeared to them in Jerusalem. Now apologists will quibble and say that the appearance in Galilee was not immediate but eventual. This is absurd! First of all, notice the verb tenses in Matthew and Mark. In Matthew 28:7 we read the angel saying:
7"Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
Notice we see "is going" not "will go. Let's look at Mark, shall we? In Mark 16: 7, the angel says:
7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.'"
Again, notice the "is going" rather than will go.
Now compare this with the prediction of the resurrection, in which Jesus says that he "will go".
Matthew 26:32 "But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee."
Mark 14:28 "But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee."
Notice the difference between "will go" and "is going"? If Jesus was going to eventually go to Galilee and not immediately why are the verb tenses not uniform? Why doesn't the angel say that Jesus "will go" to Galilee and instead of "is going"? For a prediction of Jesus eventually going to Galilee, this seems a bit misleading as to the timing. Secondly, if Jesus only intended to make an eventual trip to Galilee, why have the angels tell the women to relay this message to his disciples? What could Jesus have the angels tell the women, or even he, himself, have the women tell his disciples that he couldn't have told them himself, since he was going to meet with them, anyways, that very same day? What could the women have relayed to the disciples that he couldn't have told them himself?
These are excellent examples of errancy in my opinion. These are not the only examples of biblical errancy in the New Testament. But they serve to illustrate why I am skeptical that the resurrection narratives are inspired by Yahweh, and are in fact, God-breathed, as Christian apologists would have us believe. These two reasons, 1.) the lack of any supernatural/miraculous evidence for the resurrection in modern times, in the critical histories of top-notch reputable scholars, Jewish, Greek, Roman, secular, and skeptical outside of the gospels and a lack of such critical historical-narration in the New Testament and 2.) the errancy of the New Testament canonical gospels in general and the resurrection narratives in particular. It is for these reasons that I reject the resurrection hypothesis that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and that he is who any of the canonical gospels or New Testament epistles say that he is. It is for these reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened.


text:
We often talk about the "farm lobby" as though farmers spoke with a unified voice. And it's true, they usually try to.
But an unusually bitter and public fight is breaking out right now between the farmers who grow corn and other farmers who need to buy that corn.
There are two reasons. The first is the drought that's killing corn and soybean fields across the Midwest, sending feed prices are soaring and fraying the nerves of livestock producers, who are wondering whether they'll even manage to stay in business.
The second reason is ethanol.
Farmers who raise America's cattle, hogs, and chickens never appreciated Washington's infatuation with biofuels — especially ethanol that's produced from corn. After all, when the government nudges more corn toward ethanol factories, it means that there's less available for animals. Last year, in fact, 40 percent of the country's corn harvest went to ethanol production.
In good years, when corn is plentiful and prices stay low, no one complains too much.
In bad years, though .... well, this morning, a coalition of groups representing America's livestock and chicken farmers delivered an angry attack on the "Renewable Fuel Standard," which requires gasoline companies to buy a minimum amount of ethanol — 13 billion gallons this year — and blend it into gasoline supplies. The groups released a new study that argues that this ethanol mandate does very little good: It increases the cost of gasoline and makes the country no less dependent on energy imports.
Even worse, the meat producers say, it creates unfair competition for corn. The mandate forces gasoline companies to buy billions of gallons of ethanol that they don't even want, driving corn prices through the ceiling and potentially forcing livestock producers into bankruptcy.
Of course, corn farmers see nothing at all wrong with soaring prices and a guaranteed market for their harvest. Gary Niemeyer, president of the National Corn Growers Association immediately came to the defense of ethanol mandates. "Now is not the time for changes. It's working," he wrote in a statement to the press. "Now more than ever, U.S. agriculture needs to pull together."
The Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the renewable fuel program, could step in and reduce the amount of ethanol that gasoline companies are required to blend into fuel this year. But Wallace Tyner, an expert on ethanol markets at Purdue University, says that's extremely unlikely, and wouldn't have much effect anyway. Gasoline companies are well on their way to fulfilling their requirements for 2012 already.
The real battle, he says, will be fought over ethanol production next year. If the drought continues, and corn prices rise even more, gasoline companies won't want to buy that expensive ethanol, and livestock producers will be fighting for their survival. And the EPA will face intense pressures to cut the safety net for ethanol producers. It is expected to announce its ethanol requirements for 2013 in November.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Search Constraints
Number of results to display per page
Results for:
Used in
MM4922 Management Capstone Project
Remove constraint Used in: MM4922 Management Capstone Project
1 entry found
Search Results
In this course, you will obtain some insights about marketing to help determine whether there is an opportunity that actually exists in the marketplace and whether it is valuable and actionable for your organization or client. Week 1: Assess methods available for creating quantitative surveys, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Identify the type of questions that should be asked and avoid unambiguous survey questions. Week 2: Design, test, and implement a survey by identifying the target audience and maximizing response rates. You will have an opportunity to use Qualtrics, a survey software tool, to launch your own survey. Week 3: Analyze statistical models that can be applied to your marketing data, so that you can make data-driven decisions about your marketing mix. Week 4: Predict most likely outcomes from the marketing decisions and match the type of analysis needed for your business problem. Take Quantitative Research as a standalone course or as part of the Market Research Specialization. You should have equivalent experience to completing the second course in this specialization, Qualitative Research, before taking this course. By completing the third class in the Specialization, you will gain the skills needed to succeed in the full program.
- Subjects:
- Marketing and Statistics and Research Methods
- Keywords:
- Quantitative research Marketing research
- Resource Type:


text:
It's not quite as iconic as falling leaves, crisp air, and football, but the McDonald's McRib is usually something folks look forward to enjoying in the autumn months. Not happening this year, according to a company memo obtained by Advertising Age.
Rest assured, the McRib is still coming back from its warm weather hiatus, but fans will have to wait till late December to experience that signature mix of barbeque sauce, onions, pickles and pork trimmings, scientifically squeezed into a boneless rib shape. The reason? The company wants a proven winner to help boost anticipated late quarter sales.
According to the memo, the McRib was originally scheduled to show up between October 22 and November 11. But in an abrupt reversal, McDonald's pushed the McRib's annual launch all the way back to the end of the calendar year.
So what's a fan to do? "It feels a little displaced," said Alan Klein, creator of the McRib locator and official McRib Superfan. He's been following the McRib as it popped up around the country since 2008.
"In some ways it feels like such a long time to wait. But really, when it's a whole year, a couple more months, it makes it all the more worth it when you finally can have it," said Klein.
But some fans are plain turned off by this apparent attempt to delay the treat so far into the winter.
"I feel like the McRib has jumped the shark," said Ryan Dixon. He works for a consulting firm and blogs in Burbank, Calif.. He's a long time fan of the sandwich..
McDonalds stopped selling the sandwich nationally in 1994, causing folks like Dixon to admit to All Things Considered that he once drove 10 hours to get one. "It's a sort of culinary cousin of a Sasquatch, a Loch Ness monster, a chupacabra," he told host Guy Raz. You hear about a sighting, he says, but by the time you get there, the sandwich has disappeared.
(The McRib went national again in 2010 for limited fall engagements nationwide, which probably ended such drives, but not the passion.)
Now Dixon says the sandwich is positioned for the mainstream: "Them using the McRib to boost up their sales in the end of the winter months feels like they really don't appreciate what they have."
But if McDonald's worries about sales during the winter months, they're not alone. Each winter, restaurant sales drop across the country, analysts say. The colder it is, the less we go out, leaving drive-thrus empty wherever there's snow. But last year we experienced what meteorologists called a "snow drought." That was music to McDonald's ears, and it allowed the company to bump sales up a huge 9.8 percent last December, according to Ad Age.
"This winter's going to be completely different from last winter," says Jack Boston, senior meteorologist with Accuweather. Weak El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific will likely result in "much above normal snowfall amounts in the I-95 corridor where a large portion of the population of the United States lives."
Bad weather is bad news for the restaurant industry. To beat or even come close to last year's sales when the weather was warm, McDonald's needs a big push — and that could be the McRib, they suggest in the memo. The company did not return a call for comment.
Copyright 2021 KBIA. To see more, visit KBIA.


text:
Section 10
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, likely around April 1829, though portions may have been received as early as the summer of 1828. Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the book of Lehi, in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been temporarily entrusted. (See the heading to section 3.) The evil design was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the stolen pages and then to discredit the translator by showing discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had been conceived by the evil one and was known to the Lord even while Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon (see Words of Mormon 1:3–7).
1–26, Satan stirs up wicked men to oppose the Lord's work; 27–33, He seeks to destroy the souls of men; 34–52, The gospel is to go to the Lamanites and all nations through the Book of Mormon; 53–63, The Lord will establish His Church and His gospel among men; 64–70, He will gather the repentant into His Church and will save the obedient.
1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you adelivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the bUrim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.
2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your amind became bdarkened.
3 Nevertheless, it is now arestored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of btranslation as you have begun.
4 Do not run afaster or labor more than you have bstrength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be cdiligent unto the end.
5 aPray always, that you may come off bconqueror; yea, that you may conquer Satan, and that you may cescape the hands of the servants of Satan that do uphold his work.
6 Behold, they have sought to adestroy you; yea, even the bman in whom you have trusted has sought to destroy you.
7 And for this cause I said that he is a wicked man, for he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted; and he has also sought to destroy your gift.
8 And because you have delivered the writings into his hands, behold, wicked men have taken them from you.
9 Therefore, you have delivered them up, yea, that which was asacred, unto wickedness.
10 And, behold, aSatan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be bwritten, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands.
11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written;
12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work;
13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have acaught you in the words which you have pretended to translate.
14 Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his aevil design in this thing.
15 For behold, he has put it into their ahearts to get thee to btempt the Lord thy God, in asking to translate it over again.
16 And then, behold, they say and think in their hearts—We will see if God has given him power to translate; if so, he will also give him power again;
17 And if God giveth him power again, or if he translates again, or, in other words, if he bringeth forth the same words, behold, we have the same with us, and we have altered them;
18 Therefore they will not agree, and we will say that he has lied in his words, and that he has no agift, and that he has no power;
19 Therefore we will destroy him, and also the work; and we will do this that we may not be ashamed in the end, and that we may get aglory of the world.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that aSatan has great hold upon their hearts; he stirreth them up to biniquity against that which is good;
21 And their hearts are acorrupt, and bfull of wickedness and abominations; and they clove ddarkness rather than light, because their edeeds are evil; therefore they will not ask of me.
22 aSatan stirreth them up, that he may blead their souls to destruction.
23 And thus he has laid a cunning plan, thinking to adestroy the work of God; but I will brequire this at their hands, and it shall turn to their shame and condemnation in the day of cjudgment.
24 Yea, he stirreth up their hearts to aanger against this work.
25 Yea, he saith unto them: aDeceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to blie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.
26 And thus he aflattereth them, and leadeth them along until he draggeth their souls down to bhell; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own csnare.
27 And thus he goeth up and down, ato and fro in the earth, seeking to bdestroy the souls of men.
28 Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that alieth to bdeceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the cjustice of God.
29 Now, behold, they have altered these words, because Satan saith unto them: He hath deceived you—and thus he aflattereth them away to do iniquity, to get thee to btempt the Lord thy God.
30 Behold, I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words which have gone forth out of your hands;
31 For, behold, they shall not accomplish their evil designs in lying against those words. For, behold, if you should bring forth the same words they will say that you have lied and that you have pretended to translate, but that you have contradicted yourself.
32 And, behold, they will publish this, and Satan will aharden the hearts of the people to stir them up to anger against you, that they will not believe my words.
33 Thus aSatan thinketh to overpower your btestimony in this generation, that the work may not come forth in this generation.
34 But behold, here is wisdom, and because I show unto you wisdom, and give you commandments concerning these things, what you shall do, show it not unto the world until you have accomplished the work of translation.
35 Marvel not that I said unto you: Here is awisdom, show it not unto the world—for I said, show it not unto the world, that you may be preserved.
36 Behold, I do not say that you shall not show it unto the righteous;
37 But as you cannot always judge the arighteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your bpeace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.
38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the aplates of Nephi;
39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi.
40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I awould bring to the knowledge of the people in this account—
41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;
42 And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will aconfound those who have altered my words.
43 I will not suffer that they shall destroy my awork; yea, I will show unto them that my bwisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.
44 Behold, they have only got a part, or an aabridgment of the account of Nephi.
45 Behold, there are many things engraven upon the aplates of Nephi which do throw greater views upon my gospel; therefore, it is wisdom in me that you should btranslate this first part of the engravings of Nephi, and send forth in this work.
46 And, behold, all the remainder of this work does contain all those parts of my agospel which my holy prophets, yea, and also my disciples, bdesired in their prayers should come forth unto this people.
47 And I said unto them, that it should be agranted unto them according to their bfaith in their prayers;
48 Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the aLamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.
49 Now, this is not all—their faith in their prayers was that this gospel should be made known also, if it were possible that other nations should possess this land;
50 And thus they did leave a blessing upon this land in their prayers, that whosoever should believe in this agospel in this land might have eternal life;
51 Yea, that it might be afree unto all of whatsoever nation, kindred, tongue, or people they may be.
52 And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to adestroy that which they have received, but to build it up.
53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation aharden not their hearts, I will establish my bchurch among them.
54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;
55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not afear, for such shall binherit the ckingdom of heaven.
56 But it is they who do not afear me, neither keep my commandments but build up bchurches unto themselves to get cgain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.
57 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the aSon of God. I came unto mine own, and mine own breceived me not.
58 I am the alight which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
59 I am he who said—aOther bsheep have I which are not of this fold—unto my disciples, and many there were that cunderstood me not.
60 And I will show unto this people that I had other asheep, and that they were a bbranch of the house of cJacob;
61 And I will bring to light their marvelous works, which they did in my name;
62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my adoctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.
63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much acontention; yea, bSatan doth cstir up the hearts of the people to dcontention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do ewrest the scriptures and do not understand them.
64 Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery;
65 For, behold, I will agather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts;
66 Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the awaters of life freely.
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and acometh unto me, the same is my bchurch.
68 Whosoever adeclareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is bagainst me; therefore he is not of my church.
69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and aendureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my brock, and the cgates of hell shall not prevail against them.
70 And now, remember the words of him who is the life and alight of the bworld, your Redeemer, your cLord and your God. Amen.


text:
Photo Credit: CBS |
Monday, October 14
Nikki (Melody Thomas Scott) thinks about the effect of her decisions on her kids; Billy (Billy Miller) and Chloe (Elizabeth Hendrickson) face tragedy after Delia's accident.
Tuesday, October 15
Kevin (Greg Rikaart) tries reasoning with Chloe; Chelsea (Melissa Claire Egan) shocks Adam (Michael Muhney) and Jack (Peter Bergman).
Wednesday, October 16
Victoria (Amelia Heinle) delivers shocking news to Nikki and Victor (Eric Braeden).
Thursday, October 17
Nick (Joshua Morrow) and Sharon (Sharon Case) reach an understanding; Stitch (Sean Carrigan) pushes Dylan (Steve Burton) to go after Avery (Jessica Collins).
Friday, October 18
Billy and Adam argue; Chloe lashes out at Kevin.
- The Death of Delia Abbott: What's Wrong With THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS?
- Two new dates added to Eileen Davidson's return to THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS
- VOTE: Soap of the Week Reader Poll (October 7-11, 2013)
- Cynthia Watros Joins THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS
- THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS Day-By-Day Spoilers (Week of October 7th)


text:
President Obama has authorized several risky military missions in the past year and can claim major successes: the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan; the airstrike that killed terrorism suspect Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen; and the ongoing drone strikes in Pakistan.
The latest operation, a hostage rescue in Somalia carried out by Navy SEALs, is part of a pattern established by a commander in chief who has shown a clear preference for limited, small-scale military action.
The operation freed two aid workers, 32-year-old American Jessica Buchanan and 60-year-old Dane Poul Thisted. It appears to have been a textbook operation in which two teams of commandos swooped in by helicopter, killed at least eight pirates, and recovered the hostages unharmed.
This fits with the military priorities that Obama and his defense team outlined at the Pentagon on Jan. 5, when the president unveiled the results of a new strategic review.
"As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints," Obama said then, "we will be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces."
A key recommendation of the review was that the Pentagon should come up with "innovative, low-cost, small-presence approaches to achieve security objectives."
That recommendation could apply to tools that the administration is already using, including commando operations, targeted killings of terrorist leaders and drone attacks.
An Ongoing Debate
For all the recent successes, these missions come with questions — questions about the long-term effectiveness, the way the operations are perceived at home and abroad, and their legality.
"It's part of a broader shift in how we engage in war," says Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution. "The bottom line is 'no more Iraqs, no more Afghanistans,' no more large-scale commitments in terms of troops on the ground or time on the ground."
Singer says many policymakers and strategists don't think the U.S. can sustain large-scale operations in what some are calling "an era of persistent conflicts."
"For instance, people question whether territorial seizure is a good strategy in a worldwide conflict against nonstate actors," Singer says.
Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, says, "There's an increasing emphasis on using lower-cost tools, but it's not as high a payoff as most people suggest."
As an example, Biddle notes that the U.S. can reduce the short-term effectiveness of terrorist groups by killing their leaders, as it has done in Yemen and Pakistan.
"But when you kill the first string [of leaders], they are replaced by the second string, which is often younger, more radical, and not so open to negotiated solutions," he says.
Biddle also says that even relatively precise strikes can end up killing civilians, which alienates the population and leads to longer, more drawn-out conflicts.
Sometimes "it can make sense to decide that you only want to invest so much, and you're willing accept that you may not get exactly what you want," Biddle says. But "your ability to control the political result goes down, the smaller the investment that you make."
Still, Biddle says the strategy can have benefits where the United States may not have an overwhelming interest, but has a political need to appear strong.
"In the U.S., presidents are very reluctant to be seen as sitting on their hands and doing nothing while a catastrophe occurs," he says. "The appeal of these airstrikes and drones ... is that it gives you an opportunity to do something without all the cost."
Analysts say the strategy is in keeping with the changing attitudes of Americans who are tired after a decade of wars.
Singer cites a survey conducted by the Brookings Institution last winter, which sought to determine the views of future leaders from the so-called millennial generation — people born after 1980.
The appeal of these airstrikes and drones ... is that it gives you an opportunity to do something without all the cost.
The survey of more than 1,000 young people considered leaders by their peers found that 58 percent of them felt that the U.S. was "too involved in global affairs," Singer says. "That's roughly double the rate of isolationism as in other generations."
It's Cheap, But Is It Legal?
While the Somalia raid bears some tactical resemblances to the SEAL team mission that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last May, some observers noted that they do raise different legal questions.
Legally speaking, the Somalia raid "is more defensible than many of the other types of activities that we're talking about," says Gregory McNeal, an associate professor of law at Pepperdine University.
McNeal says that because it's a hostage rescue, it's roughly equivalent to the attempted rescue of the American hostages in Iran in 1980.
Although that rescue mission failed, it led to the passage of a law known as the American Hostage Act, in which Congress stated that the president has the authority to take whatever action is necessary, short of an act of war, to protect American citizens.
Rescue is "the category I'd like to put it in, because it's a limited use of force under international law," says Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of law at Notre Dame.
But O'Connell says there are aspects of the case that make her hesitate. "For one thing, it looks like [nearly all] of the captors were killed. Did they really have to be killed? I'd want to know what the SEALs' orders were and see their after-action report."
O'Connell noted that in hostage cases in the U.S., law enforcement officers would be held to strict guidelines regarding excessive use of force.
In any case, O'Connell says the real question is whether the government is using these new strategies in a way that's in keeping with international law. "I'm always asking the administration, 'Where is your legal authority for carrying out military operations where the U.S. is not at war — Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan?"
"Why doesn't the U.S. president move us back to a law-abiding, world-leading position, as many people thought he was going to do?" she asks.
The administration's legal rationale for drone strikes was expressed by State Department legal adviser Harold Koh last March.
Koh told a conference of international lawyers that the U.S. was in armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban and other groups "in response to the horrific acts of 9/11, and may use force consistent with its right to self-defense under international law."
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
FTC says Snapchat deceived customers
NEW YORK - Snapchat has agreed to settle with the Federal Trade Commission over charges that it deceived customers about the disappearing nature of messages sent through its service and that it collected users' contacts without telling them or asking permission.
Snapchat is a popular mobile messaging app that lets people send photos, videos and messages that disappear in a few seconds. But the FTC said Snapchat misled users about its data collection methods and failed to tell users that others could save their messages without their knowledge.
Snapchat agreed to settle without admitting or denying any wrongdoing and the company said it has addressed many of the issues the FTC raised.
As part of the settlement, Snapchat must implement a privacy program that will be monitored by an outside privacy expert for the next 20 years. The arrangement is similar to privacy settlements that Google, Facebook and Myspace have agreed to in recent years.
Although Snapchat said its app notified users when a recipient takes a screenshot of a "snap" they've sent, the FTC said recipients with an Apple device that runs an operating system that predates iOS 7 could evade the app's screenshot detection. Apple's iOS7 launched last summer.
In addition, the FTC said Snapchat's app stored video snaps that were not encrypted on the recipient's device. The videos remained accessible to the recipient, the agency said. A user could access a video message, even after it supposedly disappeared, if the user simply connected the phone to a computer and accessed the video in the device's file directory.
The FTC complaint also alleges that Snapchat failed to secure its "find friends" feature. A security breach in January allowed hackers to collect the usernames and phone numbers of some 4.6 million Snapchat users. The breach occurred after security experts warned the company at least twice about a vulnerability in its system. Snapchat later issued an update to its app that fixed the issue and allowed users to opt out of the "find friends" feature.
Snapchat's Android app also transmitted users' location information, the FTC said, even though the company told users it didn't collect such information.
The settlement doesn't have a financial component, but if Snapchat is found to violate the agreement, the company could end up paying a civil penalty of up to $16,000 for each violation. The Los Angeles startup reportedly turned down a $3 billion buyout offer from Facebook last fall.
In a blog post Thursday, Snapchat said that when its app was being created, "some things didn't get the attention they could have."
"One of those was being more precise with how we communicated with the Snapchat community," the company said in the post.
Snapchat, however, said it has since fixed the problems.
"Even before today's consent decree was announced, we had resolved most of those concerns over the past year by improving the wording of our privacy policy, app description, and in-app just-in-time notifications," the company said. "And we continue to invest heavily in security and countermeasures to prevent abuse."
The settlement will be formally approved in 30 days once a public comment period ends.


text:
It is the weirdest thing. There are more ways than ever to communicate with people, yet it sometimes seems like it is more difficult to connect — and stay connected — with anyone.
Should you shoot off an email? Tap out a text? Post a private message on Facebook? Write on their Facebook wall? Skype, poke, ping or conjure them up on a digital tin can phone?
And once you reach someone, you wonder: Is he paying attention? How do you know? Even with the techno-ease of countless communication devices, conversations can still be troublesome. Questions are asked and answered out of order. Instructions and directions go half-read. Meetings are botched. Feelings are hurt.
Nowadays, you can reach out to touch someone and not even get close. Some folks don't check their phone messages. Some don't have answering machines on their home telephones. More and more people consider home phones, and land lines of any stripe, anachronistic.
So how do you get in touch with someone?
The first instinct, says Hannah Shatzen, a senior at the University of Virginia, "is to always text a person. If they don't answer, you can catch them on G-chat or Facebook chat. If they don't answer there, you can Facebook message them and see if they'll answer later. You also have the option to tweet at someone and tell them what you want to say. And if all else fails, you can call them."
Is it maddening to have to try so many ways? Not at all, Shatzen patiently explains. "There is never a time when I can't get in contact with someone. Everyone is constantly connected."
Cue the sound of a home telephone ringing and ringing and ringing...
Multiple Avenues
A recent survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project reveals that texting is the favorite form of communication among young people ages 12 to 17. Some 63 percent use texting to chat with others every day. About 39 percent call and receive calls on their cellphones; 29 percent swap messages on social network sites — such as Facebook and Twitter — and 22 percent send instant messages.
Only 19 percent talk on land lines every day and just 6 percent exchange emails.
There are so many options. And that energizes people like Debbie Weil.
"The beauty of social media is that it does in fact create multiple avenues to reach someone," says Weil, a techno-evangelist and founder of Voxie Media, a Washington-based publishing services company for business writers. "One usually knows the preferred message to reach a friend — email, text, phone. But if you're trying to reach a potential business contact — even someone 'famous' — you now have so many ways to do it."
For example, Weil says, she is able to contact once-unreachable famous people by posting comments on their blogs, by mentioning their names in posts on her own blog, by directing tweets their way, by posting Facebook comments, by looking people up on LinkedIn and through other methods. "This is a godsend as far as I'm concerned," she says.
Of course, celebrities can be finicky.
* Actor Johnny Depp doesn't use phones. "I just don't like them ... being reachable all the time," Depp tells Access Hollywood.
* Actor Jessie Eisenberg, who played Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, admits on AOL that he doesn't use Facebook.
* And Isabelle Fuhrman, a star of The Hunger Games, prefers to not text. "I think the more communication we have, the more misunderstanding there is," the 15-year-old tells HollywoodChicago.com. "You can text someone with the best intentions and they'll ask why you're mad at them, when you're not. I don't like to text; I use it to make plans with people, but I prefer to call. You can hear the intonation in their voice and you can really connect to them. Skype and video chat is even better."
But many people are frustrated by the dizzying possibilities. And reaching someone is sometimes only the beginning of the problem.
Often with various digital communication devices, we feel connected with — and disconnected from — other people at the same time.
Sure. It happens in face-to-face encounters as well — in office meetings or boring classrooms, for example. But people who study interpersonal relations say that ever-evolving communication technology is changing the very nature of human interaction.
Joanne R. Gilbert, a professor of communication and new media studies at Alma College in Alma, Mich., says, "What I have seen in the last five or six years is an erosion in students' ability to focus, and even their ability to engage in face-to-face interaction. Students themselves notice this."
Just this semester, she says, "my communication majors discussed the fact that homework is much more of a challenge for them than it was a couple of years ago, because while doing homework, they are simultaneously texting, and sending and receiving messages on Facebook, while listening to music and looking at various websites. We discuss the illusion of multitasking and the enormous amount of recovery time it takes to focus on a single task."
Tamara Wandel, who teaches communication at the University of Evansville in Indiana, says Twitter-jitters are not confined to young people. "I know plenty of middle-aged men and women incapable of sitting with a friend for a coffee without tweeting that they're sitting with a friend for coffee," she says. "So in that way we are always in touch but in a more superficial way."
The blizzard of communication options also "introduces an interesting power dynamic, says Mary Stairs Vaughn, a professor of communication studies at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. "For example, I can gain the upper hand by not responding to a text right away or appear pathetic by constantly updating my Facebook status."
In everyday interaction, Vaughn says, "we constantly try to manage others' impressions of us. Asynchronous, text-based communication allows for much more selectivity in the presentation of self. For example, a texter can be purposefully evasive in flirting and back out if the flirting isn't reciprocated."
Before our very eyes, Vaughn says, the realms of interpersonal communication and mass communication are converging. People today have the opportunity to "brand" themselves via Facebook status updates and tweets, Vaughn says, "so now instead of talking to each other, they're more likely to read about each other."
As Sherry Turkle, author of Alone Together, writes in a recent New York Times essay: "We expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship."
Tha Medium Iz Tha Msg
Technology has its own demands, however.
Kate Kamber, a student at the University of Virginia who is Shatzen's roommate, describes the dilemma pretty well. "If you have a crush on a boy, should you text him/call him/tweet him/Facebook chat/message/G-chat/tag him in a photo?" she asks. "There are so many more mediums for communication than there used to be."
She remembers fondly only a few years ago being able to easily reach her fourth-grade boyfriend on his family's land line.
Invoking Marshall McLuhan's famous quote, "The medium is the message," Kamber says that in contemporary American culture, "the problem is not how to best contact someone for the sake of contact, but rather the problem is how to contact someone in a medium where the intended message can most accurately be conveyed."
Symptomatic of the age we live in, technology offers hopeful solutions to problems caused by the very same technology. BlackBerrys, iPhones and other supersmart devices are constantly being updated to knit many of our disparate communication methods into one easy-to-use gizmo or application — not so much a killer app as a healer app.
But there are always other techno-advancements lurking in the wings. At MIT's Media Lab, for instance, researchers are developing communication devices for the living room that focus on "remote co-presence," allowing us to laugh and chat and "be together" regardless of where we are.
Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.


text:
Getting Down To Business
Why I have to have this baby this weekend, or else:
1) Because if I have to go through another full day or night of 'false' but nonetheless really f*cking painful labor contractions, I may be compelled to shoot myself in the head, or dope myself to sleep with vodka, and neither of those things would be good for the baby, would they?
2) Because my current daily ratio of sleeping to not-sleeping, given the above, in hours as measured on a 24-hour clock - 2:24.
3) Because once tonight's episode of Lost is over, I'll only have 6 days and 23 hours in which to get this baby out and sorted so that I'm back on schedule to watch the next episode, next week.
4) Because it's my birthday next week, and a) I'd prefer that this child be born at least a few days before or after my own birthday, and I'm not waiting until next weekend (see #'s 1 - 3 above), and b) I'd very much like to have a vodka martini on that day, and not one that is cut with castor oil.
5) Because, have you seen me lately? I am the size of a small dirigible. And if this baby was pushing 8lbs over two weeks ago - even allowing for margins for error - I do not even want to contemplate how big he will be next week.
6) Because I'm ready. We're ready. It's time.
So, having exhausted all other options except Eggplant Parmesan (cooked eggplant being a couple of notches below castor oil on my personal list of stomachable foodstuffs and beverages), I'm pretty certain that I will be quaffing some castor oil within 24 hours of the closing credits scrolling onscreen for tonight's episode of Lost. I am well aware that many of you will regard this as reckless, reckless behaviour, but still: am at wit's end. Must act. Gastrointestinal discomfort, even in the extreme, is, at this point, among the very least of the physical evils that I face, including but not restricted to intermittent but ongoing painful labor and the many-days long stretch of no sleep caused by that labor. Diarrhea? MEH.
Am forging ahead. Hopefully, the next time you hear from me will be from the other side. Otherwise, expect more bitching.
PS -I refuse to confirm or deny any of the name guesses made on my last post, but I will say this: you will know. It may be a one-time only deal, but I will share the name with you. After I share it with him.
Labels: bad mother, her bad pregnancy, sprout


text:
Baby Cary is 9 months old today—and she's about to get her first haircut!
Don't know who Cary is? Click here to read her story. And click here to catch up with what she's been doing over the years.
Late Afternoon Update: So, um, I messed up for the second month in a row. Cary actually turned 9 months old yesterday. I thought about just trying to let this totally embarrassing screw up slip by, but I figured somebody would bust me.
As for all that lovely snow and ice? Yesterday it was a freaky 67 degrees (with lots of sunshine) and everything melted just like that. Today it was back down in the 30s. Weird.
Then an hour or so ago she casually mentioned she'd never had one of my Emergency Chocolate Cakes, so there is frozen butter softening by the woodstove. Oh, plus there's been a request for cranberry orange scones for breakfast. (Her motto when she visits is, "I work for food!" and over a lunch of Spur Of The Moment Summer Squash Soup—hers topped with thinly sliced Monterey jack cheese & tomatillo salsa, mine with a dollop of sour cream—we mapped out our menu for the week). Okay, I've just been informed that it's 4:30, the living room is still cold, and there's no more firewood on the porch. Now I hear Cary calling to me from outside. I guess I'd better get going. . . (I hope to answer more of your questions soon!)
A year of Farm Photos ago:
2/7/06: My Seed Starting Headquarters (check the comments section in this post for some helpful tips on starting your own seeds). And click here to read about my two favorite seed companies, plus my favorite edible gardening book for the past six years.
2/6/06: Tree Sock Laundry Day?
© Copyright FarmgirlFare.com


text:
Designing a logo is only one part of your brand, but it's also an incredibly important visual representation of what you do. That sounds like a lot of pressure, but there are some easy steps you can take to make sure your logo has lasting power, brand impact and conveys your values. Not sure what the difference is between a brand and a logo? Read this first.
Things to Consider
You may not be able to design this logo in-house if you don't have the design staff—that's ok. You can meet with a design group who develops logos and work with them to determine what you want. Some things to consider include:
- What types of colors are associated with your company currently, and do you want to keep them?
- What types of imagery come to mind when you think of your company?
- Do you want there to be words included with the logo, or just an image?
- What is your company's tagline, your values and mission?
- What type of feeling do you want this logo to invoke?
Strategizing and answering these questions before you ever dive in will help tremendously with the direction of the logo. Throw out some words that you associate with your brand and figure out how you can tie them into a logo.
It is important to hire a professional graphic designer. Here's why.
Use a Focus Group
It's virtually impossible to get everybody on board with one logo. While you can't please everybody, you can make sure to garner feedback that is constructive and helpful in the process. Bring in a group of outsiders who aren't sure what your company is. Then, give them some different options and ask them questions about what they think you do, how the colors and the design make them feel, etc.
Redesign the Outdated
Don't shy away from tackling a new logo if the times call for it. Often, brands change. The meaning of what you stand for changes with the times. If you already have a logo but it has been there for years and no longer suits you, it's time to consider a redesign.
Sure, that's a large task and it'll take time to create. Plus, you might have "die-hard" supporters of the current logo. Present the logo redesign as an opportunity for growth and give your reasons for why it's outdated. Somebody will be willing to listen, and you'll hopefully be on the right track to creating a lasting logo and brand that will boost your marketing efforts and have brand impact with your customers.
Photo by Robert Anasch on Unsplash


text:
- Symbol used by OT scholars to designate the Priestly source or Priestly Writer who is regarded by the majority of OT scholars as being one of the four main sources of the Pentateuch. P material is recognized by a concern for ritual and the prominence accorded to Aaron. It has a doctrine of creation according to which God has control of all the nations of the world but in which Abraham and his offspring have a special role. P offers genealogies [[➝ genealogy]] and accounts of cultic institutions which are put back into the period of the Exodus [[➝ Exodus, the]] and the settlement in the Promised Land, though in fact P was probably compiled (but the date is in dispute) in the exilic century (6th cent. BCE). Linguistic arguments for an earlier date have not proved decisive, but the effect of P material being inserted into an already existing framework was to impose a kind of unity. This means that the overall impression of the Pentateuch is of an outlook more developed than was typical of the period which it is allegedly describing.
Dictionary of the Bible.