text:
They need not be little, of course, nor green, nor, for that matter, come in more than one sex: indeed (with apologies to most episodes of Star Trek), they probably wouldn't recognizably be "men" at all. But extraterrestrial intelligent life would need to be intelligent--meaning, operationally, able to manipulate electromagnetic radiation to carry signals.
"This is necessary," argues Paul Davies in his new book Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995, 160 pp.), "because radio contact with aliens is possible only if the aliens are intelligent enough to possess the necessary technology" (p. 89). Should that message be received by our radio telescopes, its effect, Davies argues, could only be momentous:
There is little doubt that even the discovery of a single extraterrestrial microbe, if it could be shown to have evolved independently of life on Earth, would drastically alter our world view and change our society as profoundly as the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. It could truly be described as the greatest scientific discovery of all time. In the more extreme case of the detection of an alien message, the likely effects on mankind would be awesome (p. xii).
The effect would be awesome, Davies continues, because in an important sense it would refute the Darwinian revolution of the 19th century. In Are We Alone?, Davies makes his case for this conclusion. It's a case with several byways and tangents, and skeptics observe that the religious implications Davies wants to draw are weakly supported by his case, a criticism which illuminates the philosophical vagueness of concepts such as "contingency," "determinism," "randomness," "progress," or its absence, all of which play key roles in the positions Davies attacks, and in his own speculations.
Despite its tangents, however--or perhaps because of them!--Davies' book is well worth reading. As the first scientifically-trained winner of the Templeton Prize for advancements in religion (1995), Davies shows an acute and admirable appreciation for the larger philosophical implications of origins theories. Furthermore, he understands the shortcomings of conventional evolutionary explanations. Take, for instance, the origin of life:
The main reason why the origin of life is such a puzzle is because the spontaneous appearance of such elaborate and organized complexity seems so improbable. In the previous chapter I described the Miller-Urey experiment, which succeeded in generating some of the building blocks of life. However, the level of complexity of a real organism is enormously greater than that of mere amino acids. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of degree. Simply achieving a high level of complexity per se will not do. The complexity needed involves certain specific chemical forms and reactions: a random complex network of reactions is unlikely to yield life (p. 27).
This passage, which echoes the notion of specified complexity employed by design theorists (see, e.g., Thaxton et al., The Mystery of Life's Origin [New York: Philosophical Library, 1984], 131), is followed a few pages later by a careful analysis of the real probability bounds set by cosmology. In brief, in the cosmic gamble for the origin of life one can spin the wheel (or reach into the urn) only a finite number of times, because the pool of opportunities is not inexhaustible:
Even if the universe is spatially infinite, and contains an infinity of galaxies, we can only even see a finite subset of them. Therefore, if life is a random accident of infinitesimal probability, then it is almost certain that there is no other life within our particle horizon at this epoch, even though (assuming the Copernican Principle) there may be infinitely many inhabited planets in the universe as a whole....We can now see why, if the odds against the random formation of life are so great, there is little to be gained by widening the trial space from planet Earth to all Earth-like planets and then appealing to the panspermia hypothesis. Because no object may travel faster than light, no micro-organism may reach Earth from beyond our particle horizon.
Hence the trials that are relevant to life on Earth must be restricted to the 1010 or so galaxies within the observable portion of the universe. These galaxies may contain a total of, say, 1019 Earth-like planets. But faced with odds of 1040,000 to 1 against, multiplying the trial rate by 1019 has a negligible effect on the outcome (pp. 32-33).
These (and other) passages in Are We Alone? make the book appealing to design theorists looking for thinking outside the usual boundaries. But other passages, and in fact the main thrust of the book, will be disappointing.
Davies recognizes that a theory of intelligent causation need not commit one to invoking "miracles," meaning events which transgress known regularities of nature; i.e., "design" does not ipso facto violate any natural laws:
...We can contrive to produce highly non-random processes (such as unusual card sequences) without violating any laws of physics, so presumably a purposeful Deity could also do this.
Yet he immediately reverts to methodological naturalism:
Nevertheless, it is the job of the scientist to try to explain the world without supernatural purposive manipulation, and a number of scientific responses have been made to the problem of the enormous odds discussed above (p. 29).
The solution Davies favors?
The laws of physics have the remarkable property that they encourage matter and energy to evolve spontaneously from simple intial states towards highly complex states (such as living or conscious systems). This general self-organizing tendency in nature suggests that the emergence of life is a universal phenomenon, rather than a miracle or a highly improbable accident. ...Evidently stupid matter has a sort of innate ability to organize itself. There are many, many other examples in nature....we can imagine a very long sequence of such self-organizing steps in which inert matter goes in at the top and mind comes out at the bottom. That is, if we accept that mind is an emergent phenomenon requiring a certain critical level of complexity, we can imagine that level of complexity being achieved, given long enough, and given the inherent self-organizing tendencies that we find in matter and energy (pp. 102-103).
Yet the examples of "emergent phenomena" that Davies offers are either irrelevant--the "wetness" of water, and the arrow of time (his illustration of the latter is molecules of perfume diffusing in a closed room)--or beg the question.
Davies says that life itself is an emergent phenomenon, arising "only when matter reaches a certain level of complexity" (p. 100). True enough, but calling a phenomenon "emergent" or "self-organizing" hardly engages the question of how the necessary level of complexity is reached. Life and consciousness emerge when the conditions are right, as they must be, argues Davies, but he fails entirely to specify those conditions, beyond arguing that somehow they were built into the universe from the start, as a "sort of ?law of increasing organixed complexity'" (p. 105).
Well, as the famous street-wise equation tells us, ill-defined laws of that variety plus 65 cents = a cup of coffee. To say that life, intelligence, and consciousness are inevitable, never mind the details, is not to solve the problem of their emergence, any more than saying that they are the accidental products of a cosmic roulette (a view Davies strongly rejects).
Davies' words have a high-sounding ring:
I conclude...that consciousness, far from being a trivial accident, is a fundamental feature of the universe, a natural product of the outworking of the laws of nature to which they are connected in a deep and still mysterious way. (p. 128)
It is unclear, however, aside from tantalizing but vague adjectives like "deep" and "mysterious," how this really differs from Darwinism, either of the classical variety or later fillips. Stephen Gould, for instance, argues that he fully expects intelligent life to exist elsewhere in the universe (see his interview with John Horgan, "Escaping in a Cloud of Ink," Scientific American August 1995, pp. 37-41). Writing in the New York Times (12 July 1995, p. B4), critic Richard Bernstein scratches his head about significance of Davies' dissent:
What remains elusive...is why this "cosmic connection" is contrary to Darwinian law. If random variation and natural selection produced consciousness on earth, why would the same random variations not occur elsewhere in a universe with billions of other planets? If it did occur elsewhere, one could believe in extraterrerstrial life without ditching orthodox Darwinian thought, and without recourse to a mystical, semi-religious concept that makes us feel connected to something really big.
Thus, E.T., should he ever turn up with his glowing finger, would apparently both refute and support Darwinism. One must say "apparently," for the key terms in this dispute--contingency, determinism, and the like--are too ill-defined to rule out empirical possibilities. One wants a gutsier and more precise metaphysics from Davies than he provides.
Copyright © 1996 Paul Nelson. All rights
reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 6.22.96


text:
Product Overview
Do you want a nail polish that does not have that harsh smell of acetone? What about a product that is eco-friendly? Nail polish from Sophi by (Piggy Paint) will not damage your nail beds and is all natural. Say good-bye to dry nails when you want to change up your color. SOPHi is safe to use on all little piggies. This nail polish dries to a hard and durable finish which can be easily removed with the acetone-free nail polish remover.
- Made In USA
- Non Toxic
- Hypoallergenic
Color / Pattern ROME-ance Me Size 0.5 fl. oz.
Product Details
Water, Acrylates copolymer, Neem OilMay also contain the following colorants (depending on shade):Red 7, Red 34, Red 28, Red 17, Iron oxide, Titanium dioxide, Ultramarines, Chrome Green, Mica, Violet 2
Product Features
- Non-toxic
- Virtually odorless
- Water-based formula
- Hypoallergenic

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Home
- How-To's
- Gear
- Live Help
- Forum
- Status
- About Us
- Contact
This will assume you have the basic means to stream already, and a Ustream account. Hardware setup is something that is beyond the scope of this tutorial. If you wish to stream with FME, it is recommended that you have at least a 6 megabytes per second DSL or Cable connection with at least 400kb/s upload. Anything less and your stream would not benefit from the use of FME. Assuming you have everything above, you will need the following:
- http://www.adobe.com/products/flashmediaserver/flashmediaencoder/?sdid=FCORO
(You can use any Browser you prefer)
Setting up your stream:
- First, you will want to install the Flash Media Encoder. (restart your system once you download)
- Next, you will want to visit the "Dashboard" page on Ustream. (You can reach this page by clicking on your name at the top of any page once you have logged into Ustream.) If you have not yet set up a broadcast, do so now using the "Create a Show" link on the right side of the Dashboard.
- From your Dashboard, click the "Channel" link in the left menu.
- If you have multiple shows, select the one you wish to use, and click on the "Remote" link, again on the menu on the left side of the page.
- On the "Remote" page for your show, download your shows "Flash Media Encoder XML File". (Do not leave this page as you'll need it again further down in these instructions).
- Open Flash Media Encoder - ensuring that you do not have the Ustream Broadcast console already opened.
- Ensure you have a video and audio signal, if not that should be resolved in steps 7 and 8.
- Select "File", and than "Open Profile" in FME. Browse to the location you saved your FME XML file you downloaded in step 3.
- Video Setup. The following will heavily depend on your internet connection, adjust accordingly. The following is based upon a 6mb/400kb DSL connection. There are presets, however you may want to customize further. The following settings are not changeable during a live stream, make sure you have someone watching from another location or another computer while testing speeds and different quality settings.
- Select from the presets drop down "Medium Bandwidth (300kbs) VP6". Even if you have a fast connection, you will want to start off on medium - and work your way up from there.
- Ensure that the check box next to "Video" is selected.
- Next Select your video input device. Once this is selected you should see 2 video preview's above the options dialog, one is the input preview, and one is the output preview. If not, ensure your device is properly connected, and you have the correct video input selected. Also keep in mind, the output preview is only a preview of what is SENT to Ustream, not what is actually displayed live (this is why it is good to have a remote viewer). There are various video input options available such as brightness, contrast and hue by selecting the wrench icon next to the input device name, although the defaults should suffice for now.
- Format: Choose either VP6 or H.264. Also choose the bit rate. I use 1500 as my bit rate.
- Size: For best quality, use a 4:3 aspect ratio, such as 320x240 or 640x480. Ustream does not support widescreen streams - so you will only be reducing the viewable area if you broadcast in a 16:9 aspect ratio. Either should work when streaming. For best results, select 29.97 FPS (frames per second). This is the standard frame rate for streaming video.
- Crop: If there appears to be a black box surrounding your output, you can adjust by cropping the input area using this option. Each number increments by 1 pixel. For best results crop your video so that only the video and not the black box surrounding it is showing.
- Select (check) both "Deinterlace" and "AutoAdjust". Deinterlace blurs the vertical pixels and gives the appearance of a higher quality stream. AutoAdjust will adjust the quality of the stream based upon current internet traffic and dropped frame rates while you are streaming.
- Audio Setup: In this section I will show you how to get the best quality audio.
- Ensure that the check box next to audio is selected.
- Next ensure that the proper audio device is selected. Most people will have 2 options, their computer's sound card, and the video input device. If you do not have both of these options, ensure that your video device and/or your sound card has the proper drivers installed.
- By now you should be seeing an audio meter to the left of the input video preview. If not, ensure that the selected audio device is playing audio. You may not hear the audio, but you should always see some visual feedback letting you know that audio is being captured. If audio still is not showing, follow the steps at the bottom of this tutorial.
- Format: Format should be set as MP3, this codec is supported by both VP6 and H.264 video capture formats. Also ensure you select "Stereo".
- Sample Rate: Sample rate should be set to 44100Hz.
- Bitrate: 128 should suffice for live streaming over the web. Anything higher and you are only eating bandwidth that could be used to improve the video quality.
- Volume: This is basically user preference. However the default (about half) should be fine.
- Next - You should see under "Volume" something like "Total Video + Audio Bit Rate: 1612kbs" - the total should be no more than 3 times your rated upload speed your ISP gave you or you risk losing frames and having a stream that lags.
- Saving to file. If you wish to record and are using the H.264 Format for video capture, you can save the stream to a file. Before you press Start, click the checkbox next to "Save to file", and than browse to the location you wish to save to. For instance "C:\My Streams\November-11-2008.flv"
Connecting and Streaming with Ustream
- Now that we have FME all setup click "START" at the bottom of FME and minimize it.
- From the Dashboard's Remote page (which you should still have open from before: see 2-5 in "Setting up your stream" above).
- Click the button that says, "Launch Remote Console".
- In the remote console use the Button to start and stop recordings on your channel.
- Use the chat tab to moderate your social stream and chat and update your status above the social stream.
That's it, your stream should be live. Work with your viewers when you adjust your settings in FME. Just remember you have to close your broadcast console each time you make changes in FME, so close the broadcast console, Hit "Stop" in FME, make your changes, than follow items 1-5 above again.
No Audio displayed in FME
Just because you do not hear audio, does not mean that audio is not being broadcast. To test this, choose your sound card as your audio device, and play an MP3 in your Music player. You should see some visual feedback in FME. However if you have ensured that your device is properly connected, and the test above worked but shows no audio feedback when you select your video input device, than you will need to use the advanced settings on your video device. You can do so in FME by following the steps below:
- Click the "Video Device Capture Settings" button (the wrench next to the video input device select box).
- Click the "Crossbar" tab.
- You should have 2 sections, "Input" and "Output". Under "Output" in the top dropdown, select "1: Audio Decoder Out".
- Click Ok. You should now have audio showing feedback from the video capture device.


text:
high SG
General brewing information, questions and discussion. Topics that do not seem to fit elsewhere.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
High Alcohol
It is not so much the high gravity that could present a problem, it is more a matter of the alcohol levels. High levels of alcohol may stop your fermentation. The alcohol tolerance for most brewing yeast is at least 8%, Although levels of up to 12% can be produced by some ale strains. I think that scottish ale #1728 will do the job, but if it can't than just pitch some champagne yeast to finish the job. It won't affect the flavor because it has a neutral profile and will ferment the sugars out because of its high alcohol tolerance. Just remember that when brewing high gravity beers you will have to increase Pitching rates proportional to your starting gravity.
- Pale Ale
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:13 pm
- Location: Melville, NY
big starter
Thanks for the reply, i normally only make about 1 pint of starter up for a beer, but intend to double that amount for this one. The beer will ferment down to 9 - 10% alcohol so it sounds like the yeast strain will do the job.I had intended to have a wine yeast handy in case it got stuck but didnt want the flavours this will produce. I didnt know that a champagne yeast would ferment out "clean" so thanks for that snippet of info.
- Fraoch
- Double IPA
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 5:36 am
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


text:
Monday, July 16, 2007
Food gifts from all over the world, summer 2007
To start with, there were those cans of sweet piquillo peppers from Ximena (who, obviously, is the author of that gorgeous postcard as well):
The peppers were wonderful. I didn't even try Ximena's recipe for slowly cooked piquillos, as I liked them so much just on a slice of bread..
Then there are all those gifts from Johanna. I received a much-wanted book, Kaffehaus by Rick Rodgers, some Belgian hot chocolate, fancy coffee spoons and some spices from her in return for writing a Culinary City Snapshot on Tallinn for her. (A rather good exchange, if I may say so. PS Johanna - if you ever need me to write another piece, just give me a shout! :)
I've since received another parcel from Johanna, containing an issue of Delicious magazine, some hand-picked, organic Hungarian paprika (both hot & mild), and some more exotic spices. She had very kindly even included a bag of cheeky peppers de padron, which we had enjoyed so much while in London.
Oh, and of course some Austrian chocolate, which sadly didn't make it to the photo session. Khmm..
AND - not to forget that unforgettable jar of home-made fig jam Johanna gave us in London(picture here).
When in Edinburgh in June, I met Melissa of the Traveler's Lunchbox again, to catch up on the recent gossip from my hometown of the previous seven years. I gave Melissa some suluguni cheese, so she could try my hachapuri recipe and judge how it compares with her previous version (favourably, apparently:). In return, I became a lucky owner of some Hawaiian pink salt (alaea salt), some luscious vanilla beans, and a small jar of ras-el-hanout she had picked up in Morocco recently:
I had a chance to catch with Keiko of Nordljus fame (what's not to like about her dreamy photography!?) and her husband during my trip to London in April. We met in Cambridge on a Sunday afternoon, chatted over a cup of coffee and a large piece of chocolate cake, and she gave me two types of Japanese tea to try:
My sweet Japanese friend from Edinburg, Ryoko, sent me a Japanese care packet, containing some matcha powder (which, you may have noted, I've put to a very good use over the last few months); some dashi powder, ume-cha tea, including English explanations as well:
Last but not least, my friend Liis picked up not one, not two, but three food magazines for me during her recent trip to the US - a copy of fresh (fine cooking), a copy of Australian edition of delicious. and GardenGate's special issue backyard retreat to help me design our 2000 m2 garden. Similarly, my former colleague and now friend Hille brought me a 1977 copy of Carolina Cooking , published by Charleston Post Card Co. Inc., from her roadtrip from Miami to New York earlier this year.
These all should keep me busy & cooking for a while (and I'll be referring back to this post as I work my way through all those gifts and reads).
Thank you, everyone, for making my cooking so much more enjoyable and exciting!!!
15 comments:
- MyKitchenInHalfCups said...
You are one very very lucky lady! That really looks like "fun" stuff to have to "work" your way through. Now wonder what could have possibly happened to that chocolate.
- 11:00 pm, July 17, 2007
- Wendy said...
To echo the above comment, you are a lucky lady! I am taking part in my first blogging-by-mail event and am highly excited!
- 11:06 pm, July 17, 2007
- Lydia said...
What a wonderful collection of goodies! Can't wait to see what recipes you create with all of your gifts of food.
- 12:03 am, July 18, 2007
- K & S said...
Lovely goodies! Have fun and enjoy!
- 2:07 am, July 18, 2007
- Shayne said...
ok now I think
I am going to have to send you some maple candy or fudge from michigan.
- 5:25 am, July 18, 2007
- Kalyn said...
Wow, that's a lot of good stuff. I have that same issue of Fine Cooking. I love, love, love that magazine! Can't wait to see what you'll make with all this good stuff.
- 7:51 am, July 18, 2007
- lobstersquad said...
that´s some roundup! I´m glad you liked the peppers straight out of the tin, that´s how I take them, usually. let´s see how it goes the second time round
- 9:43 am, July 18, 2007
Nüüd ma küll punastasin:) Head suve jätku!
- 11:56 am, July 18, 2007
- joey said...
I love food gifts from friends! :) You have such a great bunch of goodies there...can't wait to see what you do with them :)
- 3:32 pm, July 18, 2007
- Mae said...
Pille, what a great array of gifts. I've been looking around for that ras-el-hanout! I'm so jealous... ;)
Like everyone, i can't wait to see what you'll make with them. Especially the dashi. I have a box of it in the cupboard but just haven't used it. :)
- 4:48 pm, July 18, 2007
- Annemarie said...
Hi Pille- Yes, wonderful gifts, and like Mae I'm jealous of your ras-el-hanout; I ran out a few months ago and am having such trouble tracking new supplies down. I look forward to reading the recipes.
- 7:00 pm, July 18, 2007
- bea at la tartine gourmande said...
you were spoiled. Well deserved!
- 8:41 pm, July 18, 2007
- Jeanne said...
You are one lucky food blogger :) That's a fantastic selection of stuff, and it could not have gone to a more deserving recipient!
- 7:48 pm, July 19, 2007
- Pille said...
Tanna - somebody must have eaten the chocolate, but nobody admits to it?!
Wendy - blogging my mail can be so much fun indeed. I'm always sooo curious to see what's inside:)
Shayne - maple fudge??? Gulp.. Sounds so delicious!
Kalyn - will try to cook something from Fine Cooking soon!
Lobstersquad - they were delicious, thanks! I've done something similar with Hungarian yellow peppers since then - roast, peel, drizzle with oil, enjoy!
Liisu - veel kord suur aitäh Sulle!
Mae - you'd find ras-el-hanout from Seasoned Pioneers, and as far as dashi goes, I'll probably use that for making healthy & nurturing miso soups :)
Annemarie - ras-el-hanout should be available from Seasoned Pioneers - try them!
Lydia, K&S, Joey, Bea, Jeanne - thank you :)
- 3:11 pm, July 24, 2007
- Shayne said...
maple fudge is yummy. email me your address and I will send you some. I just hope it makes it without melting all over the place.
- 1:37 am, July 28, 2007


text:
The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal Media. The opinions expressed below are the author's own.
Here's your chance to share a photo of your favorite tractor.
This 1958 Farmall 350 tractor is featured on the cover of the May 2013 edition of Fastline's Texas Farm Edition:
Keith Schroeder owns the tractor and restored it. Read more in the digital version of Fastline's Texas Farm Edition.
No comments have been posted to this Blog Post


text:
Industry elders might argue that these factors have taken the fun out of the industry. But I'd disagree. We may not all wear sharp suits in the digital age (although the Robin Wight "peacock" does sit in my sights), but any Mad Men-watching adman will tell you it hasn't changed all that much since then.
OK, it's not all wine and Lucky Voice. My first job in advertising was working on Tesco trade. It was a busy, stressful priority-balancing act. But that's the life of a junior account handler. At WCRS, it's no less busy; just now – working on Sky and Warburtons – I'm juggling crumpets, bread and broadband.
Most people aren't fans of Monday mornings (as Starbucks will vouch) – but, me, I like them. It's when I formulate my plan for the week. Although it isn't long before the phone starts ringing and I'm responding to an overly enthusiastic Facebook fan or getting 11th-hour feedback on a TV ad playing out in five minutes. Any successful agency in 2013 is fully integrated, which means anyone wanting to make it in the industry needs to be fully integrated. One moment you're a Twitter ninja, the next a digital project manager, the next a gaming expert. Even now, I know a surprising amount about video on demand. I learn a lot on the job (who knew Facebook had so many regulations?) and each day guarantees new challenges that keep you coming back for more.
One of the best things about this job is being able to contribute ideas regardless of your role. It's a very open creative forum where we all have a voice. A recent example was Wednesday, at a session on the Teletubbies-like rooftop garden of Google's headquarters, where we were thinking of innovative ways to generate noise, PR and social buzz around a campaign launch. Seeing an idea through from concept to completion is one of the most rewarding things, from finding that gem in a brief to seeking out that perfect PR opportunity.
At the end of the week, our Warburtons client team were in to review the new campaign's progress and get planning for the year ahead. That afternoon was spent developing an animation, briefing a new print job for Sky and arranging a load of creative reviews, before popping back to my desk to make sure a voiceover recording had gone to plan. Then on to the joys of a good contact report before meeting clients for dinner and finishing, naturally, at Lucky Voice (trying to prevent Matt Edwards from pushing show tunes up to the top of the playlist).
So, despite the nights at the desk and reading up on mobile optimisation at home, I do truly believe that the brilliant people and fun nights out remain at the heart of advertising. Roger Sterling would be proud.
Richard Williams is an account manager at WCRS


text:
Dear all,
I've carefully read the threads on this, but I must be missing something. I'm trying to be able to look up a Greek word from BW7 to my LSJ in Logos. I've got it to the point where it will open up the Libronix platform, but even though I've tried several different ways to get it to go, it will not open LSJ. When I manually open LSJ, it also will not bring up the Greek word in question.
Any thoughts (besides, "you should have waited for the LSJ module on BW to come out!" I couldn't wait. Now I wish that I had!)
puzzled in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia


text:
Where do you discover new kid-friendly crafts?
I get inspiration from so many places. Much of my inspiration comes from projects I remember my mother doing when she taught Kindergarten, and crafts I remember making as a child. Sometimes, I look at a pin on pinterest and try to figure out how to do "my own take" on it. I have a few favorite blogs that serve as a jumping off place.
Most of it, though comes through trial and error. This past Christmas, I was determined to make salt dough handprints for J to send to his grandparents. However, the recipe I used didn't work right and we had a sloppy mess! (It was fun, but a huge mess.) So, I tried again, this time the dough was right, but it took longer to bake than the "recipe" stated - much longer. The hand prints that were supposed to be out of the oven at 9pm weren't done until 3 am. Then, of course, when it was time to paint them into the adorable reindeer that I had seen on Pinterest, my son didn't want to paint them that way. He wanted to paint them all his favorite color, red. Then, he added in blues, oranges, and yellows. They looked a little, how shallI I put this, like the rainbow had thrown up on them. But, they were gorgeous because he made them and was so very proud of them.
Which, I guess, is my ultimate answer to the question. I discover new, kid friendly crafts through my son. Many times, I imagine a particular project, put out the supplies and envision one thing in my head, only to have my son do something entirely different, but more special. He definitely inspires me the most!
(And, if any of us are going to do crafts with and for kids, that is the most important part, right - giving our children the opportunity to create and craft using their own trial and error, their own experiences, and their own experimenting.)


text:
Two common weeds in Western alfalfa pack a punch so powerful that even small quantities can be deadly to cattle and horses.
"Common groundsel and fiddleneck contain pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs)," says Arthur Craigmill, a University of California-Davis toxicologist. "The consumption of even small quantities of PAs causes severe liver damage."
"PA poisoning isn't a widespread problem. However, it does show up in different degrees every year," says Mick Canevari, a California farm advisor.
The alkaloids are resistant to heat and also maintain their toxicity in dry hay.
There are no cures or antidotes for PA poisoning, so preventing growth of PA-containing weeds in hay and pasture crops is crucial.
Fiddleneck is usually a big problem in new alfalfa stands and less of a problem in established ones. The opposite is true of common groundsel, Canevari says.
To control common groundsel in new seedings, Canevari recommends Buctril, Gramoxone or 2,4-DB; in established stands, apply Velpar. To control fiddleneck in new seedings, he recommends Buctril; in established stands, Gramoxone with Velpar or Karmex.
The alkaloids are typically concentrated in the weeds' small shoots and in the seeds at maturity. But the concentration varies from year to year. Craigmill says consumption of large amounts of groundsel or fiddleneck may kill animals in a few weeks or less.
"Other times, an animal can eat the weeds for several months before signs of poisoning actually become visible. When symptoms suddenly appear, it looks like something just happened. But it's actually a result of months of intake of the compound."
If a diagnosis is made in time, animals may recover, he says.
In cattle, common signs of PA poisoning include dull haircoat, dry muzzle, lack of conditioning, diarrhea and depression. Horses lose condition, stop eating, become depressed and wander aimlessly.
"There's a definite hierarchy in sensitivity among species to this particular toxin," points out Craigmill. "Horses are the most sensitive, followed by cattle, hogs and chickens, which are less sensitive, and sheep, goats and turkeys, which are the least sensitive. The young of all species are more sensitive than adults.
"If hay with PAs is fed to dairy cattle, the alkaloids are then excreted in milk. Humans are susceptible to PA poisoning."
Most animals find the toxic weeds unpalatable and won't eat them if better forage is available. Of course, animals can't select toxic plants out of cubes or pellets, says Craigmill.


text:
Now, in recent weeks we have stated clearly and with great confidence the belief that the Bible is God's revealed inspired Word. The historic Christian faith is built upon the confidence that this Book is God-breathed. And that particular point we have endeavored to establish now for several weeks.
It is infallible. That is, it does not lead to error. It does not lead to wrong conclusions. It does not teach erroneous doctrine. It is also inerrant. That means in the smallest part, each word, there is no error in the original manuscript. And it is authoritative. That means what it says is binding on the lives of all.
And I'd like to add to that that it is trustworthy. The Bible is believable. The strongest objective support for Biblical inspiration and authority is the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. That's the strongest objective testimony. The greatest witness to the truth of the Bible that ever lived was Jesus Christ. If Jesus said it's true, it's true. That's the greatest support. There can be no more reliable witness to the nature of Scripture than the one who died and rose to be the Savior, Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ rules His church by His Spirit and by His Word. This is the divine authority. He Himself has said so.
And recently, though, there has been a rather destructive heresy that has crept into Christianity, and that is the heresy that says the Bible contains errors. If something is taught in Scripture, they tell us, it may or may not be true. It may be true, but, then again, it may not be true. In other words, Scripture isn't really a basis for believing anything. It just might be a basis. And, as we've said in the last several weeks, if you say that there are some things that aren't true, then who judges what is and what isn't? And once you've let the cat out of the bag, you're finished, because then men become the arbitrary deciders of what's in and what's out.
You see, in history past, we had an interesting thing. You study the history of the church, for the most part, and you find this, that in the history of the church in the past years, it was the skeptics versus the Christians. I mean, it was pretty clearly drawn. The skeptics said, "The Bible's not true. It contains errors." The Christians said, "It is true. It does not contain errors." But recently it's the Christians against the Christians. And I use the word "Christian" in one sense, at least, advisedly. It's the so-called Christians against the true Christians. And maybe some critics of Biblical inerrancy are really born again. That even adds greater dimension to the miracle of the new birth. But today we not only have to fight the skeptics outside theology, we've got to fight people who call themselves Christians and go around propagating the fact that the Bible has errors. The very integrity of Jesus Christ rests on the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, that is, that in total, this is the inspired Word of God, and in every word it is the inspired Word of God. That is the doctrine that Jesus believed in. And if Jesus believed it, His integrity is at stake. We either have a divine Savior and an infallible Bible, or neither. Not a divine Savior and an errant Bible, because He said it was without error.
Now, the critics of inspiration usually bring up three areas of problems, and we're going to look at the Word of God and see if we can answer them. Number one, they say the Bible is not inspired because it disclaims inspiration. In other words, at places in the Scripture it denies that it is inspired. They say there are passages which clearly disdain inspiration. You say, "What passage?" The one they always point to is I Corinthians 7. Let's look at it, and let's see whether it disclaims inspiration. I Corinthians, chapter 7. Now, here, Paul the apostle distinguishes between his instruction and the Lord's instruction. And, at first glance, he seems to be perhaps saying that some of his writings are not inspired. But as you look closer, you're going to find that just the reverse is true. Look at I Corinthians 7, verse 6. I Corinthians 7:6, and here's one of the disclaimers that the critics and modernists use. Paul says, "But I speak this by permission, not by commandment." They say, "Now, you see, there Paul is saying that this is not something that comes authoritatively from God, that here he's giving his opinion. It's just a matter of his opinion. It is not anything that's inspired of God." Is that what he's saying? Well, look what he's saying. "I speak this by way of permission," is the literal translation, "not by commandment." Now, what he's saying is simply this. "I am permitting you to do something, but I am not," what? "Commanding you to do it." Now, that seems very simple. "I am speaking to you by way of permission, not of commandment. I am not commanding you to do something. I am simply allowing you to do it." What is the something? Being married is the something. Now, he's talking here about marriage. He says in verse 2, "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband." Now, if it stopped there, we'd be in trouble, because all the single people in the church would be living in open disobedience. So he says a little further down, "Now, folks, I want you to know that God wants to permit you to be married, but it isn't something that you have to do." In fact, he kind of even backs off of it a little ways. It's kind of interesting. He says, "I would that all men were even like I am, but every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that. I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it's good for them if they abide even as I." And Paul was single. You know, for him it was an advantage. Can you imagine if he had a wife at this point? He may have at one time, but the poor woman would've been driven to distraction by his absence. I mean, and she would have been worried to death, because he was forever in a particularly difficult problem.
So he said, "If you're unmarried or a widow, that's great. Stay that way. But if they can't have self-control, let them marry. For it's better to marry than to burn." Now, you can argue about what the "burn" means. I think the interpretation is to burn with passion. Some of us have to get married, or we get in trouble. In other words, we're made with needs that demand a partner.
So all Paul is saying in this passage is, "Look, when I said in verse 2, 'Let every man have his own wife,' and then went on to talk about marriage, I am merely saying that this God allows, but it is not that I am commanding this, because if you're single and God has that gift for you, terrific. You can be like I am, and you won't have the encumbrances of life that a married person has. But, if you can't have self-control, get married." That's practical. But if you look at it in the context, is it a disclaimer to inspiration? It has nothing to do with that.
They pull another one out of here, too. I Corinthians 7:10, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." Now look at verse 12. "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." Now the critics say, "You see? In one verse he says it's the Lord. In another verse he says it's not the Lord, it's just plain old me talking. So, you see, there are parts of Scripture that are not inspired."
Now, if Paul laid a disclaimer on inspiration in verse 12, how do we know that that isn't true of other places where he just gives his opinion? Now, do you want to know why it is that, for example, in major denominations they can bypass all of the passages about women elders? There is no such thing as a woman elder, incidentally, because an elder has to be the husband of one wife, so there couldn't be a woman elder. But there are in some churches. You say, "Well, how do they allow for a woman elder?" It's very simple. That was Paul's opinion.
I mean, if Paul gave his opinion in I Corinthians 7, he gave his opinion somewhere else, we'll just take it as opinion and chuck it. Now, you see how convenient that is? You see, once you give in the ground here and agree that this is an opinion and not a commandment of God, or that this is something less than inspiration, then you've really opened the door, and every time they don't want to buy something, they just say it's an opinion.
Why is it that in some of the major denominations you have some of the greatest movements of women to try to usurp authority in the church? Women priests, arguing and hassling about whether they have the right to preach and perform communion, etc., etc. You say, "Well, what do they do with the passages that say that that's for a man, and a woman is not to usurp authority?" "That's an opinion. That's Paul's opinion."
See, once you allow for that, then it's gone. And then you can say, "Well, that's his opinion. Well, that's his opinion." Pretty soon you've opinionized the Bible away. And then all you've got left is the words of Jesus, and when He offers an opinion, it's binding.
But what does it say? You say, "You keep talking, MacArthur, but you don't tell me what it means." All right, I'll tell you what it means. I Corinthians 7:10, "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband." What is he referring to? He's saying that, "I am telling you something that didn't originate with me, it originated with the Lord. I'm quoting Jesus." And he quotes right out of Matthew 5:31-32. "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband."
And, of course, the statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32 is what he refers to. And what is the statement? I'll read it to you. Jesus simply said, "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement, but I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife except for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery," etc. In other words, Jesus said, "Stay together." And apparently it even was broader than that. And Paul is saying here, "I'm not telling you anything new. I'm merely restating to you what Jesus said. Stay married."
You see, in the Old Testament, a divorce was relatively easy. And Jesus came along and said, "I'm telling you that if you allow for a divorce under any other grounds than adultery, you cause the wife to commit adultery," and so forth. And Paul's saying, "Now, when I say to you, 'Stay married,' it's not just me, but it's the Lord who commanded it." Do you see what he's saying?
Now, when you go to verse 12, "The rest speak I, not the Lord." Now he says, "I'm no longer quoting Jesus. I'm speaking." It is not that he's saying, "I'm not inspired." He is just saying, "I'm not quoting Jesus." Jesus had already taught that marriage was to be permanent. Divorce was permitted only for adultery. And now, beginning in verse 12, Paul adds his own inspired teaching to the teaching that Jesus had already given. He doesn't say, "I'm just gonna throw in my opinion." He says, "No, the Lord taught that. Now, let me add to what the Lord said."
Friends, not only is he not minimizing his teaching. He's putting it on an equal basis with the teaching of whom? Of Jesus Himself. Paul said, "The Lord commanded that. Now I'm gonna tell you something. This isn't something the Lord said. This is new revelation." "If a brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman who hath an husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." This is something Jesus never talked about. What happens when one member of the family gets saved? Paul says, "Stay together." "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now they're holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases." Now, there's a potent statement. Jesus said, "You will not be allowed to be divorced on any other grounds than," what? Adultery. Did you realize that Paul added another ground? If an unbeliever wants out, let him what? Depart. You're not in bondage in such cases. You say, "You mean Paul added to the words of Jesus? You mean Jesus made a qualification and Paul added to it another qualification on an equal basis?" Absolutely. There are two grounds for divorce in the New Testament, adultery and an unbeliever who will not live with a believer, who wants out. He has the freedom to go, and you're not under bondage in such cases. Because God has called us to peace. God knows that if you're a Christian and there's no way that that partner is going to come to Christ, and he makes your life brutally miserable, that it's better for you to be separated, because God has called you to what? Peace. And so Paul actually adds a word to the word of Christ Himself. And, incidentally, I'll say something else. Do you know that in the Old Testament, in Ezra 10:11, in Ezra 10:11, the Scripture said, "Separate yourselves from foreign wives"? Did you know that it said that in Ezra 10:11? That the Jews were commanded at that point to separate from foreign wives? Now, Paul, here, is stating something totally opposite, isn't he? It's a new dispensation. It's progressive revelation. And Paul is saying, "I'm telling you, stay with an unbeliever unless that unbeliever absolutely rejects and wants out of the relationship. If he departs, let him go." So Paul actually reverses a statement in the Old Testament and adds to a statement of Jesus.
Friends, this is not...this is not minimizing Paul's opinion. This is putting his opinion on an equal basis with all Scripture, Old Testament and the word of Christ Himself. So rather than disclaiming divine authority, he actually places his own commands on an equal basis with Old Testament Scripture and equal to the words of Jesus. And you have to remember that things are qualified as we go through the Scripture. It's progressively revealed.
Let me give you another one. Look at verse 25. And here again they say the same thing. "Well, see, here's his opinion." "Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment." And you say, "See, he's just giving his opinion again." That is not his opinion. He is simply saying, "Jesus didn't say anything about this area, but I will speak. I don't hesitate to speak. Though Jesus never said a word about it, I hasten to give my judgment." You say, "It's just your opinion." Look at verse 40, the end of the verse. He concludes this whole discussion with this statement. "I think also that I have," what? "The Spirit of God." This is not opinion, friends. This is divine revelation. Paul does not give his opinion. He reveals the will and the mind of the Holy Spirit. And he concludes the whole section with that statement. So the disclaimers are not disclaimers at all. They are actually the opposite. And instead of disclaiming inspiration, Paul puts his own statements on an equal level with Old Testament Scripture, even superseding the principle of the Old Testament in Ezra 10:11 and on equal basis with Jesus Christ, even adding to the qualifications for divorce that our Lord Himself gave.
Let me give you a second area. The critics secondly say, "Well, the Bible is full of errors because of transmission trouble." Now, some of you know about transmission trouble, but it isn't this kind. "The Bible has problems in its transmission. You see," they might say, "well, you fundamentalists are right, that the original autographs maybe were perfect." And that's what we're saying. When we say the Bible is verbally inspired and without error in its words, in every detail, we mean in the original autographs, the original copies. And so they say, "You see, that's fine if you want to say that in the original. But do you realize that the original was written thousands of years ago, and all down through the years people copied, copied, copied, copied, copied, copied, and there are all kinds of mistakes in there, and we don't know what we've got in this Bible? I mean, this thing is so far away from the original, it's ridiculous. What gives us the idea that this is accurate, like the original was?"
And, incidentally, there are no original manuscripts left. Do you know why? Because somebody'd put them up somewhere and bow down to them, believe me. They're gone. So the critics say, "We have no accurate manuscripts." This was a hue and cry a few years back. "The preservation and circulation of Scriptures cannot be guaranteed. We don't know whether they are accurate. How do we know that this Bible we hold in our hands that's written in English has any relationship to the original thousands of years of ago? Scribes may have messed it up all the way down the line." That's a good, fair criticism, if it's a criticism, indeed.
Let me just add a few thoughts to that. The Bible was written originally by its writers. Then a process of copying began. The original scrolls were copied by scribes. That's what scribes were. Copiers. And scribes believed that they were copying the Word of God, and they were super-careful. They had specially trained and dedicated men, who took on them the copying process. They had principles of checking and rechecking. Long and painful work, a demanding, extreme care was their lot for their lifetime. And they were lifetime scribes.
It is said of Ezra, who was a scribe, that he could recite the Old Testament word perfect from beginning to end. And they knew it as God's Holy Word, and they wanted it reproduced as such. Christian scholars even in the Christian era have taken to the study of manuscripts with as great an intensity, perhaps, in many cases. The scribes were careful because they believed the very words they dealt with were the words of God.
Let me add this. It is exciting to realize that, in the opinion of most scholars today, aside from a few skeptics who haven't checked it out, in the opinion of most scholars, the text that you hold in your hands right now is practically identical to the original. That's no problem for me. If God is powerful enough and intelligent enough to write it, He certainly can take care of it.
Do you realize that your Bible that you hold in your hand, though it is an ancient book, has been established with greater certainty than any other ancient book in existence? The Bible has more manuscript evidence, and by that I mean this, they have found copies of the Bible on scrolls and parchments and papers all over the place, and the more they find, the more agreement they find. And they have a scribe over here in one century cranking it all out, and they find that parchment. Here's another one over here in another parchment. And they bring them together, and they're identical, and out of two different cultures in two different time periods by two different men who never met. And they say somewhere the source has maintained its purity, because everybody's coming up with the same copies. That's a powerful point.
A.T. Robertson, who's a great scholar, said this, and I quote, "There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin, and at least 1,000 for the other early versions. Add to that 4,000 Greek manuscripts, and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament. And all 13,000 essentially agree." That's exciting. God has preserved it. This shows the pure preservation of Scripture. Thirteen thousand manuscripts written in different periods, different origins, from all different areas and by all different men in all different periods of time, agree.
In the New Testament, for example, textual scholars who study all these manuscripts find there are certain areas of human errata. That means error, mistakes. And the scribe copying may get a letter wrong, or there may be some kind of an inverted word order or something like that. They have found that there are certain things. But it is less than one word in every thousand. In fact, one out of every 1,580 words in the Old Testament has any kind of configuration that varies with another one in another manuscript.
Listen to this, quoting from Morris, "Although there are varying readings in the manuscripts, over 99 percent of the variations are spelling." Spelling. I mean, we can understand if a guy didn't spell too well. Over 99 percent of all the errors are spelling mistakes. Friends, that's exciting. Less than 1 percent of anything in here is a true error. And that's after centuries and centuries and centuries.
What about Old Testament manuscripts? Why, for the Old Testament, we have the Masoretic text, a group of scribes who lived around 500 A.D. We have the Septuagint. Incidentally, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was done before Christ. And it's quoted frequently by, particularly, the writer of Hebrews. We have the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. We have the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac version, and then the greatest discovery of all is what? The Dead Sea Scrolls. You know, I can't help but go to Israel and go in that Dead Sea Scroll place and just get goose bumps all over me. You know, and if you don't know what's going on, you say, "This is really a musty old thing. What is all this?" And you just look up there, and there is the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it's exciting. And you go down to Qumran and they tell you about a little kid who was trying to chase a sheep out of a cave, and he threw a rock in there and he heard a piece of pottery break, and he went in and found the whole thing. You say, "What was it?" It's a manuscript of the Old Testament. You say, "What's so important about it?" Those Dead Sea Scrolls go back past the New Testament, past the time of Christ, past, way back, and they slide right up against the Old Testament.
You know, there's 400 years between the end of the Old and the beginning of the New, and the Dead Sea Scrolls slide right up to the end of the Old Testament. That's exciting, folks, because they're the whole Old Testament, almost. And you know what's really exciting? The manuscripts that were put together in 500 A.D. are essentially identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls of perhaps as much as 800 or 900 years before. I mean, that's exciting. I stand there and look at those Dead Sea Scrolls and realize, those very scrolls were being read by people who wanted to discover the Messiah before the Messiah even came.
And what really thrills you is, we've been having a Bible in our hands that came from some scrolls and some manuscripts that were put together in 500 A.D., and they found some nearly a thousand years older that agree exactly with them. Now, if God can preserve it through that period of time, He can preserve it for all the time, can't He? That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important. When the Dead Sea Scrolls showed up, a whole lot of critics should've gone right back into the caves that the Dead Sea Scrolls came out of. It is practically the entire text of the Old Testament. The scholars tell us, any variation in the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Masoretic text is so minute it isn't worth any significance. God has preserved His Word.
No, when somebody comes along and says, "We've got transmission problems," I say, "Forget it. The same God who put it together preserved it." Yes, Jesus said, "My words shall not," what? "Pass away." And, listen, friend, part of the fulfillment of that prophecy is that the manuscripts stayed true. Now, there are some manuscripts that are really faulty, but it's obvious. We can tell. Because we have the good ones, the true ones.
All right. A third area. The critics attack on the area of the fact that the Bible makes disclaimers to inspiration, and, secondly, on the area of transmission. Thirdly, they attack on the area of difficulties. I call it difficulties. They call it errors. But I like difficulties better. They say that, "If you're going to say the Bible is inspired, how do you account for all the mistakes in the Bible? I mean, there are mistakes every place."
Paul Rader, you remember him? Paul Rader, back in 1930, offered $1,000 to anybody who could come up with one single proof that the Bible contradicts itself. He said anything in history, geology, archaeology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, ethnology, etc. Nobody ever claimed the $1,000. The errors in the Bible are very elusive. They aren't errors. You know what they are? They are difficulties masquerading as errors.
You say, "Well, why did God allow difficulties? I mean, why are there parts of the Scripture that are hard to harmonize?" And there are. Why isn't it just easy? I know why it's hard to harmonize. I can give you some reasons.
Number one, it disproves collusion. You know, the critics would like to push all the dates of the Bible way up and have all the Bible writers sort of in the same little glob writing, and that way they could explain how come they all said the same thing. But the very fact that there are difficulties to harmonize shows that they didn't really get together, that it isn't a forgery. Because if the Bible is a fraud and it was forged and it was cranked out of collusion, it's going to agree with itself, right? I mean, if you want to write a book that would be believable, man, you'd make everything wrap together, wouldn't you? And the fact that there are any difficulties at all is a good indication there wasn't any collusion in the writing.
Let me give you another reason for difficulties. I think there are difficulties here because it forces you to do what? You got it. Study. And I think that there are difficulties in the Bible because we have to close so many gaps. "What do you mean by that?" I mean there are gaps. For example, some things are difficult to us because we don't understand culture. Right? We don't understand the culture in which it was said. Other things, we don't understand the geography. We don't understand the history of the times. We have a terrible language problem. We're trying to figure out what Hebrews meant when they used Hebrew words several thousand years ago. You see, by having to face all these huge gaps, there is difficulty. One other thing. Difficulty is always the product of brevity and summary. You know, when you get a whole historical incident reduced to five verses, man, you've got a lot left out. Right? And when there's anything left out in summary or brevity, it's difficult. So I believe that God allowed these difficulties to disprove collusion, to force us to study, and that they are there because there's just difficulty in closing all the gaps, and that they are there because they're the products of brevity and summary.
One other thing. I'm glad there are some totally insurmountable, absolutely beyond conquest kind of problems, because that means God's ways are higher than man's ways. And it speaks of a divine author. In 1800, the French Institute in Paris issued a list of 82 errors in the Bible, and the French Institute announced that this would destroy Christianity. Today, none of the 82 remain. Neither does the French Institute. The critics claimed a host of errors in 1850, and they were all recanted in 1930.
II Peter 3:16 is interesting. It says, in all of Paul's epistles, speaking in them of these things "in which are some things hard to be understood." The Bible agrees. It isn't easy. II Peter 3:16, "in which are some things hard to be understood." Peter's kind of...it's really kind of cute to hear Peter say this. He says, "You know that Paul. He's awful hard to understand." Peter is a lot easier than Paul. But there are abbreviated stories. There are gaps of culture, gaps of language, gaps of geography, gaps of history and gaps of custom. And it's difficult. It's not error, it's difficulty.
Well, let me give you some of the things they say, and I'll try to answer them. Number one is, "Where did Cain get his wife?" That is so easy to answer. He married his sister. You say, "But that's not right." But the definition of that came later. I mean, if you're going to have everybody coming from one family, somebody's got to marry somebody in the family. In fact, did you know that in Genesis 5:3-4, it says that Adam lived 930 years and begat many sons and daughters? And over a period of 930 years, you'd better believe that those sons and daughters also begat many other sons and daughters. In fact, one man figured out that Cain could have chosen his wife from 35,000 people.
Now, let me show you another one that they bring up. Joshua 10, the battle of Gibeon. Remember this one? And this is where they criticize the Scripture as being unscientific. The Lord won the battle, verse 10 says. But verse 12, "Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said, in the sight of Israel, 'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Aijalon.' And the sun stood still and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven and hastened not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before or after it."
Now, you see, the people say, "Oh, isn't that funny? You see, they had the idea that the sun went around the earth. You see, they were erroneous scientific information here. They thought the sun was going around the earth. Oh, isn't that terrific? 'Sun, stand still.' Technically, he should've said, 'Earth, stop revolving,' if he was a scientist." But, friends, the Bible is written from the human perspective. It is written in not scientific language, but human language. You get up in the morning, you throw your curtain up and you look out and you say, "Oh, what a lovely earth revolving." No, that is a sunrise. You say, "Oh, that isn't very scientific." Of course it isn't. You're looking at it from the human viewpoint. In the evening, when you look out to the west and you see above the layer of ground the...the layer of red, and you say, "What a lovely earth revolving." No, it's a sunset. We talk about the four corners of the earth. We don't believe it's square. We talk about the fact that the North Pole is on the top, and we say Australia is down under. And the old scientists used to laugh when somebody said the earth was round, because they said, "Isn't that stupid, to imagine men going around hanging like some sort of suspended creatures by their feet?" You see, they couldn't think those thoughts.
When the Bible gets into scientific areas, it speaks from the human viewpoint. It is not intended to be a textbook on science. It is just as accurate for Joshua to say what he said as it would be for you to say that it's a lovely sunrise, because in his view that's exactly what happened. The sun stayed right where it was. And that's the simplest way to describe it. And we still do it.
You know, I could give you some other illustrations. If Daniel escaped the lions' den, he didn't escape the critics' den. The critics have always taken liberties with Daniel. They call the whole book a forgery. They did it for a long time, you know. They said his whole thing was a forgery, and then somebody discovered the Elephantine Papyri, which was a particular archaeological discovery that historically makes Daniel totally credible, and all the critics' mouths were shut.
Let me give you another illustration. II Kings 18, and here's another one that they used to criticize. II Kings 18:14, Now, the great king of Assyria was a man named Sennacherib, and the king of Israel was a fine man by the name of Hezekiah. And there was a war. And I want you to notice, as we look at verse 14, "And Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria, to Lachish, saying, 'I have offended. Withdraw from me. That which thou puttest on me will I bear.' And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold." Now, Hezekiah was commanded by Sennacherib to pay 300 talents of silver, 30 talents of gold. Archaeologists digging found most interesting information in regard to this very battle. In fact, they found the records of the transaction between Sennacherib and Hezekiah. But what was interesting was, it was Sennacherib's own official account that they found. And when the archaeologists found it, Sennacherib's account said, "800 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold."
So there was a discrepancy, and so they said, "See, here again, the Bible is in error." They never thought Sennacherib could make a mistake. Plus the fact they were dealing with later manuscripts and they did find the original record of Sennacherib. Want to know something interesting? Archaeologists continued to dig, and the more they dug about Assyrian life, the more they found out. And recently they have discovered that the standard of calculation for gold in Judea and Assyria was the same. So 30 talents of gold in Judea, that would be the way they would say it. Thirty talents of gold in Assyria, that's the way they would say it. But the standard for calculating silver was different. And, in fact, they have discovered that it took exactly 800 Assyrian talents to make 300 Jewish talents. The Scripture was right to the very number.
You see, folks? These aren't mistakes. It's just that we need further information. Do you understand that? Further insights.
Well, what about theology? Well, they're always saying that Paul and James disagreed. Look at Romans 4. In Romans 4, Paul talks about Abraham. They say, "The Bible not only makes mistakes numerically, scientifically, etc., etc.," and, as I've showed you, all of them are not mistakes at all, but they say, "Theologically it makes mistakes." It says in chapter 4 of Romans, verse 1, "What shall we say, then, that Abraham, our father, as pertaining to the flesh hath found?" In other words, what particular works were beneficial to him? "For if Abraham were justified by works, he had something of which to glory, but not before God. For what sayeth the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." Now, in verse 4, he says, "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." So here it says Abraham didn't get his salvation by what? By works. He got it by faith.
Now go to James 2:21. And in James 2:21, it says, "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar?" Now, you see, they say you have right here a disagreement, an absolute contradiction. You have justified by grace and faith in Romans 4, in James 2 justified by works. But, friends, if you study the passage, you find something very interesting. Paul is referring to Genesis 15. James is referring to Genesis 22. Paul is referring to the time that Abraham actually was redeemed, actually was termed righteous, in Genesis 15, when he believed God. James is referring to the time when Abraham offered Isaac as a visible indication of the reality of his faith. Paul is saying, "You're saved by faith." James is saying, "And your true salvation will become visible by what you do." There is no disagreement. One is a corollary to the other. Yes, Abraham was justified by faith, but his faith validated his salvation in chapter 22 when he showed how he really believed God, and that's all James is saying. He's saying, "Of course you're saved by faith, but I'll you one thing. If your life doesn't reveal your faith, there's no faith there." Right? That isn't a contradiction at all.
So, you see, with careful study, with any kind of scholarship, with the findings of archaeology, the difficulties melt away, and the Bible stands under all the assaults. That's defense. The Bible can defend itself.
What about offense? Let me just give you some quick thoughts, and this is just a brief thought or two. Can the Bible positively testify to its authority? As well as defending itself, can it attack? It's got a good defense. What's its offense like? Let me give you several thoughts.
I think the Bible...the Bible is trustworthy because of its uniqueness. I mean, let's face it, folks. There's no book like this in existence. And, as I said last time, if you don't believe God wrote it, you have a problem. Who did? Professor Monier Williams, the former Boden professor of Sanskrit, spent 42 years studying Eastern books, and this is what he said. "Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table, but place your own Holy Bible on the right side, all by itself, all alone, and with a wide gap between them. For there is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other utterly, hopelessly and forever." He said after 42 years of studying Eastern sacred books they don't belong in the same place with the Bible.
For example, just take the Hindu Bible. In the sacred writings of the Hindus, you find such fantastic nonsense as this. "The moon is 50,000 leagues higher than the sun, and shines by its own light. Night is caused by the sun setting behind a huge mountain several thousand feet high located in the center of the earth. This world is flat and triangular and is composed of seven stages, one of honey, another of sugar, a third of butter and another of wine. And the whole mass is borne on the heads of countless elephants which, in shaking, produce earthquakes." That's the sacred writing of the Hindus.
You read the Koran and you'll find out that the stars are nothing but torches in the lower heavens and that men are made out of baked clay. The most gross kind of errors abound. Errors regarding the material world are common in...mostly common in Homer, in Greek and Roman mythology, in the wild, disordered books of the Hindus, the traditions of the Buddhists and the Muslims. The greatest geniuses even of ancient philosophy, such as Aristotle, Plato, Pliny, Plutarch, Lucretius and others, wrote such absurdities that, if one such absurdity was found in the Bible, it would totally and forever discredit its inspiration. But there's not one of them in the Bible. Not one.
James Orr, speaking of the Moslem, Zoroastrian and Buddhist Scriptures, said this, and I quote, "It is the simple fact that there is nothing that can be properly called history in these other sacred books of the world. They are, as every student of them knows, for the most part, jumbles of heterogeneous material loosely placed together without order, continuity or unity of any kind." The Bible is unique. It has been read by more people, published in more languages, at least 1,280-plus languages, studied, criticized more than any other book. God wants it circulated, and it's getting circulated. The first major book ever published was the Bible, wasn't it? On Gutenberg's press. By 1932, the London Bible Society says there were one and a half billion Bibles in print...1932. And nobody knows how many billion there are now. It's the only book that gives the account of special creation. It's the only book that gives a continuous historical record from the first man to the present era to the future. It's the only book of ancient history that gives history a purpose. It is by far the purest religious literature, with the highest moral standards. It is the only book of antiquity containing detailed prophecies of events to come accurately. And it is the only book which has proven to convict men of sin and lead them to salvation. There is no book in the world like the Bible, its uniqueness.
Second, I think the Bible is true because of its unity. Whenever you see the unity of the Bible, you have to see one author. Sixty-six books, 40-plus human writers, nearly 1,600 years, all the way from Moses, who wrote the first one in your Bible, to John, who wrote the last one, and you've got unity through the whole thing. One man wrote in Syria, another in Arabia, another in Italy and Greece. They wrote in the desert of Sinai, the wilderness of Judea, the cave of Adullam, the prison at Rome, the barren island of Patmos, the palaces of Zion and Shushin, the rivers of Babylon, etc., etc., in three languages, different lifestyles, different occupations, locations, events. Poetry, history, theology, proverbs, parables, allegory, and on it goes. And every bit of it is one harmonious whole. A master mind controlled it all. It's not pell-mell. It's not scattered. Have you ever thought about the Bible? It's a fantastic book. Do you realize that just if you lay out the pattern of the Bible, there are four themes in the Bible: revelation, history, devotion and prophecy? And both Old and New Testament follow those themes. In the Old Testament, what are the books of revelation that God reveals? The Pentateuch. Then comes history, Joshua to Esther. Then comes devotion, Job to Song of Solomon. Then comes prophecy, Isaiah to Malachi. The New Testament, revelation, the disclosure of God, the Gospels, history, the Book of Acts, devotion, the epistles, prophecy, the Book of Revelation. The same format.
Just to show you how the Bible is done, let me show you this. In the Old Testament, you have salvation prepared. In the Gospels, salvation effected. In the Acts, salvation preached. In the epistles, salvation explained. In the Revelation, salvation fulfilled. Perfect historical continuity. It's going from somewhere to somewhere else, and it gets there. One of the most beautiful tributes to the Bible was paid by Billy Sunday. This is what he said, and I want to read you this. It's really beautiful. "Twenty-nine years ago, with the Holy Spirit as my guide, I entered at the portico of Genesis. I walked down the corridor of the Old Testament, in the art gallery where pictures of Noah and Abraham and Moses and Joseph and Isaac and Jacob and Daniel hung on the wall. "I passed into the music room of the Psalms, where the Spirit sweeps the keyboard of nature until it seems that every reed and pipe in God's great organ response to the harp of David, the sweet singer of Israel. I entered the chamber of Ecclesiastes, where the voice of the preacher is heard, and into the conservatory of Sharon and the lily of the valley, where sweet spices filled and perfumed my life. "I entered the business office of Proverbs and on into the observatory of the prophets, where I saw telescopes of various sizes pointing to far-off events, concentrating mostly on the bright and morning star which was to arise above the moonlit hills of Judea for our salvation and redemption. I entered the audience room of the King of Kings, catching a vision written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then into the correspondence room, with Paul and Peter and James and John and Jude writing their epistles. "I stepped into the throne room of Revelation, where tower the glittering peaks where sits the King of Kings upon his throne of glory. And I cried out, 'All hail the power of Jesus' name. Let angels prostrate fall. Bring forth the royal diadem and crown Him Lord of all.'" The Bible is unique, and it is united.
Lastly, I think the Bible vindicates itself by its indestructibility. You see, the Bible is God's Word, and because it is God's Word it partakes of God's nature. Right? And God is eternal, so it is what? Eternal. Psalm 119:89. "Forever, oh Lord, thy word," what? "Is settled in heaven." You know, throughout history, Satan has attacked the Bible. Selsis tried with his brilliant genius and failed. Horphree tried with the hammer of philosophy and failed. Diocletian, the Roman emperor, tried the most concerted attack ever against the Bible. He tried to destroy Christians. That's right. He was a real killer of Christians. But he also attacked the Scripture. In 303 A.D., 300 years after Christ, he brought to bear against the Bible all the military and political power of Rome. He issued proclamations that every Bible had to be burned, every manuscript. Naturally, Christians didn't do it. So the imperial government then demanded that the Scriptures be given up, and anybody who didn't give them up would be executed. Murdered. That failed. He killed a whole lot of Christians, burned a whole lot of Scripture manuscripts. The penalty of death was carried out. Many Christians died. In fact, he burned so many Christians, and burned so many manuscripts, that he finally erected a column. You know, they used to...whenever they'd get a great victory, they'd put up a big triumph arc. You know how many arcs of triumphs there are, and how many great columns of victory there are in ruins around the world? Well, he put up a great, huge triumph column, and it was called Extincto Nominium Christianorium, which means "the name of Christians has been extinguished." And they built this huge thing. You know something? Twenty-two years later, the first church council met at Nicea and enthroned the Bible as the only infallible judge of truth in the world, 22 years after he erected his column. Pseudoscience has tried to laugh the Bible out of existence. Two hundred years ago, Voltaire said, "Fifty years from now, the world will hear no more of the Bible." In that very year that I'm going to mention in a minute, the British Museum paid the Russian government a half a million dollars for one copy of one Greek manuscript. And in that very year, the first edition of Voltaire's book sold on a Paris bookstore counter for less than eight cents. It wasn't very many years until his book was worth eight cents and one New Testament manuscript, one, Sinaiticus, was worth a half a million.
Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, 200 years ago, presented his genius. And, I mean, he was smart. He was one of the geniuses of his age. And he presented his genius as an attack on Christianity, and, boy, he really went after it. He felt his arguments would destroy forever the Bible. He predicted that in a few years the Bible would be out of print.
On returning to America, he boasted, and I quote, "When I get through, there will not be five Bibles left in America." Fifteen hundred years after Herodotus wrote his history, there was only one copy. Twelve hundred years after Plato wrote his books, there was only one copy. We've got 13,000 manuscripts of the Bible. Oh, by the way, going back to Voltaire, 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his house and his press to print Bibles.
Oh, incidentally, going back to Diocletian, 25 years after his efforts, Constantine commission Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of the Bible at the expense of the Roman government. H.L. Hastings says, "Infidels, with all their attacks, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the pyramids of Egypt." When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians, says Hastings, in his Dominion, an old statesman said to him, "Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers." So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. Praise the Lord for His Word. Amen? What a book, united, unique, indestructible. The grass withers. The flower fades. The Word of God abides forever.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
A study targeting effective treatment of chronic pain in dogs involving a University of Colorado researcher and a Lafayette veterinarian is being expanded, and if your pet has joint disease -- including arthritis -- it could be included.
And the animal's treatment will be free.
Previously, the study -- which employs a gene therapy using the protein and anti-inflammatory Interleukin-10, or IL-10 -- was focused on treating pain in dogs' spines. Now, the focus on joints is expected to open the study to a larger pool of potential participants.
An expansion to the research was approved last week by the Institutional Animal Care and Use committee at CU.
The study is led by Linda Watkins, a distinguished professor in CU's psychology department and the Center for Neuroscience, in partnership with Dr. Robert Landry, who runs the Mountain Ridge Animal Hospital and Pain Management Center in Lafayette.
Watkins was traveling Friday and unavailable for comment. However, in a previous statement regarding the study, she said, "Our ultimate goal is to find a means by which clinical pain control can be improved so as to relieve human suffering."
And, she said, "Our early peek at the potential of this therapeutic treatment in dogs shows essentially the same positive effects we have seen in laboratory rats used in our studies that have been treated with the therapy."
Demonstrating effectiveness and safety of the treatment in a second mammal is seen as key to moving forward to an eventual approval from the FDA for use in humans.
Watkins is co-chair of the scientific advisory board for Xalud Therapeutics of Boulder and San Francisco, which developed XT-101, a gene therapy that harnesses IL-10 to normalize glial activity and stop neuropathic pain.
Glial cells, under normal conditions, act as central nervous system regulators, cleaning up cellular debris and providing support for neurons. However, they can also play a key role in pain enhancement by exciting neurons that transmit pain signals and trigger issues such as chronic neuropathic pain.
Under the outlines of the now-expanded study, dogs will be given the gene therapy through shots into their joints rather than their spinal columns, a more invasive procedure.
For a dog to take part in the study, it must have a diagnosed case of joint disease such as arthritis. Prior to be being admitted to the study, the dog must be brought to the Mountain Ridge Animal Hospital for a pain consultation. If the dog qualifies, the ensuing treatments are free, but pet owners are responsible for paying for the pain consultation, which is about $60.
"This is going to open this up to far more dogs," Landry said. "They don't need general anesthesia; they will only have to be sedated."
Also, the spinal treatment during the study's initial phase did not afford him an opportunity to include dogs whose complaint was in their front legs.
"A lot of the dogs that had arthritis were not going to benefit," Landry said. "Now, we can actually attack that joint that's actually causing all this discomfort. We'll inject directly into the joint to reduce pain and increase comfort in the joint space itself.
"We may be able to reduce the magnitude of the (pain) signals that are pounding that spinal cord."
Those interested in having their dogs participate in the study can contact Mountain Ridge Animal Hospital in Lafayette at 303-665-4852.
Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Chum wrote:AV Dawn wrote:Chum,
I absolutely admit that! Tolliver did a tremendous amount of work down low to help the Dubs win.
I actually had written: "If Tolliver had a low-post offensive game, he would be special." --- but then I deleted the second part cause I didn't know if that was going too far, and I had already used the word special re: Curry.
I still think Turiaf and Tolliver coming off the bench would be good.warriorsstepup wrote:Chum, this will excite you, Toliver was a +21.
We out-rebounded a team, 42-39, say what.
Steinmetz was bold tonight. He slammed Chris Bosh. I gotta admit Bosh looked like less than a super-star tonight. I don't think he's worth the top money.
Steinmetz also basically said that a Curry/Monta backcourt isn't a long term solution. They need to "upgrade" the backcourt.
Steinmetz went on to talk about the draft. He said he liked Turner but felt we would have to take Wall if he was there for us. He left himself an out by saying "If the Warriors feel that Wall is special" they have to take him.
I like Steinmetz. I see him really struggling with choosing whether to say how he really feels as a blue collar basketball guy, and his new role on tv of having to first think, "how's that going to play in Warrior tv land?" The permanent grin and the words not said, say a lot sometimes.


text:
What the heck; you'll do what you want anyway.
Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português
Posted by Abe at 9:14 PM | Permalink |
<< Home
N. B.: All posts and comments represent the views of the individual writer, even if expressed in first person plural. These views are not necessarily those of other posters or of the employer of any of the writers. Rude or offensive comments may be deleted by the site administrator. However, failure to delete a particular comment does not imply agreement with the views expressed in it.


text:
Ekornes Stressless Windsor 3 Seater High Back Sofa
Now From £2,560
Also in this Collection
Ekornes Stressless
Sofas serve several different purposes. Some are for lounging, reading or watching television; others are for making guests feel at home or for enjoying long lazy afternoons. That's why all Stressless sofas are available in both high-back and low-back options with individually adjusting seats.
Available in High Back or Low Back option. Choose the combination you desire for any sized living space or setting.
Interest Free Credit
0% interest free credit is subject to acceptance. Please enquire in store for details.
Free Delivery
Free delivery on orders of £250 or more within a 50 mile radius of our stores.


text:
RMC Prayer Page for our prayer warriors.
Pansies, milkweed & daffs, oh my! - Yes, it's been a while since I've posted. All is well...just very, very busy. There isn't a lot of time these days to post free stuff, or even to donate a...
1 year ago
|There once was a man who had nothing for his family to eat. He had an old rifle and three bullets.
So, he decided that he would go out hunting and kill some wild game for dinner.
As he went down the road, he saw a rabbit. He shot at the rabbit and missed it. The rabbit ran away.
Then he saw a squirrel and fired a shot at the squirrel, but missed it. The squirrel disappeared into a hole in a cottonwood treel.
As he went further, he saw a large, wild "Tom" turkey in the tree, but he had only one bullet remaining.
A voice spoke to him and said, "Pray first, aim high, and stay focused."
However, at the same time he saw a deer which was a better kill.
He brought the gun down and aimed at the deer. But, then he saw a rattlesnake between his legs, about to bite him, so he naturally brought the gun down further to shoot the rattlesnake.
Still, the voice said again to him, "I said, 'Pray, Aim high, and Stay focused."
So, the man decided to listen to God's voice.
He prayed, then aimed the gun high up in the tree, and shot the wild turkey.
The bullet bounced off the turkey and killed the deer.
The handle fell off the gun, hit the snake in the head, and killed it. And, when the gun had gone off, it knocked him into a pond.
When he stood up to look around, he had fish in all his pockets, a dead deer, and a turkey for his family to eat.
The snake, (Satan), was dead simply because the man listened to God.
Moral of the story:
Pray first before you do anything, aim and shoot high in your goals, and stay focused on God.


text:
THOMPSON, THOMAS, schoolmaster and merchant; b. 1803 in Yorkshire, England, son of Thomas Thompson (who also came to Canada about 1830 but of whom no more is known); m. Rebecca Boyce, and they had three children; d. 12 Oct. 1868 in Toronto, Ont.
Thomas Thompson, who had taught school in England, arrived in York (Toronto) in 1830 and opened a private school. Soon after, he offered the premises as a meeting house to the Primitive Methodists who were struggling to establish themselves. Unlike many others, the school prospered and was later sold to immigrants who wished to establish themselves in the same way. Throughout his life Thompson's educational activities proved to be more financial than pedagogic; at the time of his death he held the mortgage of Joseph Day's Commercial College.
By 1833 business opportunities in a growing community about to be incorporated drew Thompson into retail trade. He is credited with opening the first boot and shoe store in the city; known to patrons as "cheap Thos. Thompson's shoe warehouse," he advertised his business as "Thomas Thompson's Cheap Shoe Store." He was undoubtedly one of the first merchants to market goods on the basis of a large stock, high volume of sales, low mark-up, and extensive advertising.
His tactics worked well and in a few years Thompson expanded into general merchandise, particularly dry goods, clothing, and millinery. The location of the business changed several times but always remained near the St Lawrence Market. He suffered heavy losses in the Toronto fire of 1849 but reopened "The Mammoth House," as the business had become known, within a year. "A lean man with resolute features, deep-set eyes, a drift of side-whisker, and a high black stock," Thompson developed a reputation for integrity and subtle ingenuity in business by concluding his advertisements for staple and fancy dry goods with a condemnation of other advertisers and an appeal to the wisdom of potential customers: "As the subscriber is much opposed to the system of puffing, now so common, he would merely request the public to call and examine for themselves." His son Thomas became a business partner in 1864 and took over the Mammoth House on his father's death.
Thompson should not be confused with Thomas Thompson, a saddler and harness-maker, who was councilman and alderman for St Lawrence ward from 1861 to 1868.
York County Surrogate Court (Toronto), will of Thomas Thompson, no.1079, 1868. U.C. Land, Mercantile, and General Advertiser (Toronto), January 1835. Commemorative biographical record, county York, 97. Cyclopaedia of Canadian biog. (Rose, 1886), 804–5. Middleton, Municipality of Toronto, III. Robertson's landmarks of Toronto, I.
© 1976–2019 University of Toronto/Université Laval
Cite This Article
Hugh A. Stevenson, "THOMPSON, THOMAS," in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 9, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed February 22, 2019, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/thompson_thomas_9E.html.
The citation above shows the format for footnotes and endnotes according to the Chicago manual of style (16th edition). Information to be used in other citation formats:Permalink: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/thompson_thomas_9E.html
|Author of Article:
|Hugh A. Stevenson
|Title of Article:
|Publication Name:
|Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 9
|University of Toronto/Université Laval
|Year of publication:
|Year of revision:
|Access Date:
|February 22, 2019


text:
Examine Free Books On-line and Download eBooks totally free. Find thousands of Richard II (Arkangel Complete Shakespeare) books to go through online and get free eBooks. Discover and go through free books through indie authors along with tons of typical books. Browse categories to uncover your favorite literary works genres: Romance, Dream, Thriller, Short Reports, Young Adult in addition to Children's Books. You will find eBooks for everyone.
Description : King Richard II The sensitive and poetic Richard II is undoubtedly the rightful king of England, but he is unscrupulous and weak. When his cousin Henry Bolingbroke returns from banishment to usurp the crown, Richard's right to the throne proves of little help to him. Richard is forced to abdicate, but as his power is stripped away, he gains dignity and self-awareness, and he meets his death heroically. Performed … Full descriptionOne of Shakespeare's finest history plays, Richard II deals with one of the most sensitive and politically explosive issues of its day–the rights and wrongs of deposing a legitimately appointed king. Forerunner to the two parts of Henry IV, the play deals with the abdication of King Richard II in 1399, the subsequent succession of Bolingbroke, the future King Henry IV, and Richard's death in the spring of 1400. But the play has been celebrated above and beyond its stature as historical drama. Richard II begins with a portrait of Richard as a pompous, arrogant and self-regarding sovereign, with little sense of his people or his political responsibilities. As he consistently miscalculates in his attempts to destroy Bolingbroke, and watches his own power wane, he becomes a far more appealing, Hamlet-like figure, more interested in "talk of graves, of worms and epitaphs", and "sad stories of the death of kings". Richard's speeches become increasingly lyrical and poetic as his supporters desert him, until he finally takes on the stature of the pilloried Christ in the climax of the play, the deposition scene, one of the most politically risky scenes in all of Shakespeare. The play remains most famous for John of Gaunt's "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle" speech, but historians believe that the play was also performed in the streets of London in 1601 in support of the Earl of Essex's attempt to depose Elizabeth I. Whilst the plot failed, it showed the power of the theatre of the time, and the politically controversial nature of Shakespeare's play. —Jerry Brotton


text:
This Comptroller Memorandum (CM) is to clarify CM No. 3 dated May 23, 2001.
CM No. 3 stated "Effective immediately, the Bureau of State Payrolls (BOSP) will no longer process requests for payment under the Meritorious Service Awards Program unless accompanied by a written statement certifying awards were authorized prior to May 14, 2001. The written statement must be signed by an employee whose signature is on file with BOSP." For further amplification, any award initiated or authorized in accordance with an Agency's Meritorious Service Award Program prior to May 14, 2001 will be processed.
Additionally, payment requests for non-cash items under the Meritorious Service Awards Program (i.e. framed certificates, plaques, mugs, caps, shirts, watches, gift certificates, and other tokens of recognition) will also require certification. The certification must contain a statement the award was initiated, recommended or authorized in accordance with an Agency's Meritorious Service Award Program prior to May 14, 2001. This certification must accompany the voucher schedule and remain in the agencies financial records.
Any Meritorious Service Award action initiated and authorized after May 14, 2001 will not be approved.
The amended Section 110.1245, F.S., continues to allow agencies to incur expenditures, not to exceed $100 each plus applicable taxes, for suitable framed certificates, pins, and other tokens of recognition for appreciation and recognition to:
Additional information on payment of savings sharing program, bonus payments, and other awards authorized by Chapter 2001-43, Laws of Florida, will be forthcoming.
Questions regarding non-cash awards may be directed to the Bureau of State Payrolls at 410-9416, Suncom 210-9416.


text:
October 5–6, 2011
Watch All Six Videos of the Symposium
This symposium examines artistic exchange between Latin America and the United States from the late nineteenth century to the present. Papers consider how artists and artworks have crossed the border separating the U.S. and Latin America (defined as Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean), creating new artistic dialogues and influencing each other's work in meaningful ways.
The histories of U.S. and Latin American art have long been viewed as largely independent of each other. Transnational narratives have instead privileged exchange with Europe. But today there is a growing desire to dissolve the rigid borders that separate the history of art of the United States from that of Latin America.
This symposium couches artistic encounters between north and south within their historical moment and political conditions, and examines the role of individuals, institutions, and exhibitions in the exchange and promotion of art and ideas. Speakers consider various modes of artistic engagement including the two-way exchange of ideas and techniques, artistic collaboration, appropriation, and counteraction.
Encuentros: Artistic Exchange between the U.S. and Latin America is the third of five Terra Symposia on American Art in a Global Context, which are supported by a generous grant from the Terra Foundation for American Art. The Terra Foundation is dedicated to fostering exploration, understanding, and enjoyment of the visual arts of the United States for national and international audiences.
Several papers from the symposium were published as Commentaries in the Summer 2012 issue (Vol. 26, No.2) of the museum's scholarly journal, American Art, along with an introduction by Chon A. Noriega. For information on subscribing to the journal or purchasing back issues, please visit www.journals.uchicago.edu/AmArt.
For symposium information, please email email@example.com. Faxes may be sent to +1 (202) 633-8372.
Listen to "Encuentros: Artistic Exchange between the U.S. and Latin America" on iTunes U for free.