Thursday, 1 May 2025

Real life tony stark is a game changer?

GROK on the western schism.

Yes, there were times when multiple popes presided simultaneously, primarily during the Western Schism (1378–1417). During this period, rival factions within the Catholic Church elected different popes, leading to competing claims to the papacy:

Western Schism (1378–1417): After the death of Pope Gregory XI, the election of Pope Urban VI in Rome was contested. A group of cardinals, dissatisfied with Urban VI, elected Clement VII, who set up a rival papacy in Avignon, France. This created two lines of popes: one in Rome and one in Avignon. At its peak, there were three claimants to the papacy:

Rome: Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII.

Avignon: Clement VII and Benedict XIII.

Pisa (1409–1415): A council in Pisa attempted to resolve the schism by electing Alexander V (and later John XXIII), creating a third line of popes.The schism was resolved at the Council of Constance (1414–1418), which deposed the rival popes and elected Martin V as the sole pope.

Another earlier instance was the Great Schism of 1130–1138, when two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II, claimed the papacy after a disputed election. Innocent II eventually prevailed.

These periods of multiple popes were driven by political, regional, and ecclesiastical disputes, leading to competing claims rather than a unified papacy.Another earlier instance was the Great Schism of 1130–1138, when two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II, claimed the papacy after a disputed election. Innocent II eventually prevailed.

These periods of multiple popes were driven by political, regional, and ecclesiastical disputes, leading to competing claims rather than a unified papacy.

GROK'S pregame analysis of a hypothetical Sherlock Holmes vs. Lex Luthor chess match up

A chess match between Sherlock Holmes and Lex Luthor would be a fascinating clash of intellects, each bringing unique strengths to the board. Here’s a breakdown of how it might go:

Sherlock Holmes:

Strengths: Holmes, as depicted by Arthur Conan Doyle, is a master of observation, deduction, and strategic thinking. His ability to read opponents and anticipate moves would make him a formidable chess player. He’d likely excel at recognizing patterns and exploiting subtle mistakes, treating the game like a puzzle to unravel.

Approach: Holmes would play methodically, focusing on positional play and long-term strategy. He’d analyze Luthor’s body language and habits (e.g., hesitations or nervous tics) to predict his moves. His improvisational brilliance, seen in cases like A Study in Scarlet, suggests he could adapt to unexpected tactics.Weakness: Holmes might overthink or become distracted by trying to “solve” Luthor’s psychology, potentially missing simpler, direct threats. His reliance on logic could also make him vulnerable to unorthodox or chaotic moves.

Weakness: Holmes might overthink or become distracted by trying to “solve” Luthor’s psychology, potentially missing simpler, direct threats. His reliance on logic could also make him vulnerable to unorthodox or chaotic moves.

Lex Luthor:

Strengths: Luthor, as a DC Comics supervillain, is a genius strategist with a knack for outmaneuvering even Superman. His intellect is paired with ruthless pragmatism, making him a dangerous chess opponent. He’d likely prepare extensively, studying Holmes’ known games (if any) and devising traps tailored to his opponent’s style.

Approach: Luthor would play aggressively, favoring sharp, tactical lines to pressure Holmes early. He might employ psychological warfare, taunting Holmes to disrupt his focus, as seen in his manipulations in stories like All-Star Superman. His access to advanced technology (e.g., AI simulations) could give him an edge in preparation.Weakness: Luthor’s arrogance could lead to overconfidence, causing him to underestimate Holmes’ unconventional brilliance. His need to dominate might push him into risky positions, especially if Holmes baits him into overextending.

The Match:

Opening: Luthor might choose a sharp opening like the Sicilian Defense to test Holmes’ tactical acumen, while Holmes could opt for a solid, flexible setup like the London System to keep options open and observe Luthor’s tendencies.

Middlegame: Holmes would likely focus on subtle positional advantages, slowly building pressure while dodging Luthor’s tactical traps. Luthor, meanwhile, would push for complications, aiming to overwhelm Holmes with aggressive piece play.

Endgame: If the game reaches an endgame, Holmes’ precision and patience could give him an edge, especially in a simplified position where calculation trumps bravado. However, Luthor’s cunning might shine in a chaotic endgame with imbalanced material.Outcome:

Edge to Holmes: Holmes’ ability to read people and adapt on the fly might frustrate Luthor, whose plans often rely on opponents following predictable patterns. Holmes’ experience solving complex mysteries suggests he could outmaneuver Luthor in a battle of wits, especially if Luthor’s ego leads to a critical misstep.

But Luthor’s no slouch: If Luthor anticipates Holmes’ deductive approach, he could use misdirection—perhaps sacrificing material to create a position too complex for even Holmes to untangle in time.Verdict: In a single game, I’d lean toward Holmes winning 55-45, thanks to his superior intuition and adaptability. In a longer match, Luthor’s preparation and stamina could close the gap, but Holmes’ ability to learn his opponent’s style would likely keep him ahead. It’d be a tense, brilliant battle, with both players pulling out every trick.

If you want a deeper analysis of specific chess strategies they might use or a fictional play-by-play of a game, let me know!Verdict: In a single game, I’d lean toward Holmes winning 55-45, thanks to his superior intuition and adaptability. In a longer match, Luthor’s preparation and stamina could close the gap, but Holmes’ ability to learn his opponent’s style would likely keep him ahead. It’d be a tense, brilliant battle, with both players pulling out every trick.

If you want a deeper analysis of specific chess strategies they might use or a fictional play-by-play of a game, let me know!

Real life tony stark says we are definitely in the jetson's timeline

GROK's pregame analysis of the(hoped for) bruce wayne vs. Lex Luthor chess match

Bruce Wayne (Batman) vs. Lex Luthor in a chess match would be a battle of intellect, strategy, and psychology, given their respective personas and skill sets. Here's a breakdown of how it might go:

Bruce Wayne's Strengths

Strategic Genius: As Batman, Bruce is a master tactician, often planning several moves ahead in combat and detective work. This translates well to chess, where foresight and adaptability are key.

Psychological Insight: Bruce is adept at reading people, using his understanding of opponents' motivations to outmaneuver them. He could exploit Lex's ego or overconfidence.

Discipline and Focus: Bruce's training and mental fortitude allow him to stay calm under pressure, avoiding impulsive moves.

Preparation: Bruce is known for studying his enemies obsessively. He'd likely analyze Lex's past games (if any) and tailor his strategy accordingly.Lex Luthor's Strengths

Super-Genius Intellect: Lex is one of the smartest humans in the DC universe, with expertise in science, strategy, and manipulation. His raw intellect could give him an edge in calculating complex chess positions.

Ruthless Ambition: Lex plays to win at all costs, potentially making bold, aggressive moves to unsettle Bruce.

Psychological Warfare: Lex is a master manipulator, capable of taunting or distracting Bruce to throw him off his game.

Experience: Lex's wealth and status suggest he’s likely played chess at a high level, possibly against grandmasters, giving him practical experience.Lex Luthor's Strengths

Ruthless Ambition: Lex plays to win at all costs, potentially making bold, aggressive moves to unsettle Bruce.

Psychological Warfare: Lex is a master manipulator, capable of taunting or distracting Bruce to throw him off his game.

Experience: Lex's wealth and status suggest he’s likely played chess at a high level, possibly against grandmasters, giving him practical experience.The Match

Opening: Bruce, cautious and methodical, might opt for a solid, flexible opening like 1.d4 or 1.e4, aiming to control the center and probe Lex’s strategy. Lex, confident and aggressive, could choose a sharp opening like the Sicilian Defense or King’s Gambit, trying to seize the initiative early.

Midgame: Bruce’s ability to anticipate Lex’s plans would shine here. He’d likely play positionally, setting traps and waiting for Lex to overextend. Lex, however, might push for complications, sacrificing material for an attack to overwhelm Bruce’s defenses.

Psychological Dynamics: Lex would try to rattle Bruce with taunts about Gotham’s crime or his parents’ death. Bruce, stoic but human, might feel the sting but would counter by subtly baiting Lex’s ego, goading him into risky moves.Endgame: If the game reaches a technical endgame, Bruce’s discipline could give him an edge, as he’d grind out a win through precise calculation. However, Lex’s brilliance might allow him to find unexpected resources, especially if he’s behind.

Endgame: If the game reaches a technical endgame, Bruce’s discipline could give him an edge, as he’d grind out a win through precise calculation. However, Lex’s brilliance might allow him to find unexpected resources, especially if he’s behind.

Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

GROK on may day

May Day, celebrated on May 1st, has a dual history rooted in ancient traditions and modern labor movements.

Ancient Origins: May Day traces back to pre-Christian Europe, particularly Celtic and Germanic festivals. It marked the beginning of summer, celebrated as Beltane in Celtic cultures, with rituals like bonfires, dancing around maypoles, and crowning May Queens to symbolize fertility and renewal. Romans celebrated Floralia, honoring the goddess Flora with flowers and festivities. These pagan traditions persisted, evolving into secular spring celebrations across Europe, with maypole dances and village gatLabor Movement: In the 19th century, May Day became synonymous with workers’ rights. On May 1, 1886, U.S. labor unions organized a nationwide strike for an eight-hour workday, culminating in the Haymarket Affair in Chicago, where a bomb explosion during a protest led to deaths and heightened tensions. In 1889, the Second International, a socialist organization, declared May 1st as International Workers’ Day to commemorate the Haymarket martyrs and advocate for labor rights. It became a global day for demonstrations, strikes, and celebrations of workers’ solidarity, especially in socialist and communist countries.

Modern Observance: Today, May Day is a public holiday in many countries. In some, like the UK, it retains its spring festival character with traditional dances and fairs. In others, particularly in Europe and Latin America, it’s a day of labor protests and political rallies. In the U.S., it’s less prominent, with Labor Day in September taking precedence, but some activist groups still mark it. The holiday’s meaning varies by region, blending ancient rituals with modern social justice themes.

Wednesday, 30 April 2025

GROK on Jewish philosopher Philo's Logos.

Intermediary Between God and Creation Philo viewed God as completely transcendent—perfect, beyond comprehension, and separate from the imperfect material world. To explain how such a God could create or interact with the universe, Philo introduced the Logos as a mediator. The Logos acts as God’s agent, facilitating the creation and governance of the world without compromising God’s transcendence.

2. Divine Reason and Blueprint Drawing from Platonic philosophy, Philo described the Logos as the divine reason or mind. It contains the ideal forms or blueprints of everything in existence, serving as the rational principle that brings order and intelligibility to the cosmos. In this sense, the Logos is the organizing force behind the universe.

The Word of God Philo linked the Logos to the Jewish concept of God’s creative word, as seen in Genesis (e.g., "And God said, 'Let there be light'"). He identified the Logos as the spoken word through which God brings the universe into being. Beyond creation, the Logos also serves as the medium of divine communication, such as in revelation and prophecy.

4. Firstborn of CreationPhilo referred to the Logos as the "firstborn" or "eldest" of all created beings, highlighting its unique role and preeminence. Though distinct from God, the Logos is closely tied to Him, often described as God’s image or reflection, through which all things are made.

Tuesday, 29 April 2025

Yet another skrimish in the war of the titans

Sunday, 27 April 2025

GROK on the Andromeda paradox

What is the andromeda paradox?

The Andromeda Paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity illustrating how simultaneity is relative. It involves two observers moving relative to each other, say on Earth, with one walking toward the Andromeda galaxy and the other away from it. Due to the relativity of simultaneity, their "now" slices—events they consider simultaneous—differ.

For the observer moving toward Andromeda, their "present" includes events in Andromeda's future compared to the other observer’s "present." The time difference can be significant—potentially days or years—depending on their relative velocity and the distance to Andromeda (about 2.5 million light-years). This arises because light signals from Andromeda take time to reach Earth, and the observers' motion tilts their planes of simultaneity in spacetime.

The paradox highlights that events simultaneous for one observer may not be for another, challenging intuitive notions of a universal "now." It’s not a true paradox but a consequence of Einstein’s theory, where time and simultaneity depend on the observer’s frame of reference.

Saturday, 26 April 2025

GROK on Isaac Newton's christology.

Isaac Newton's Christology, or his views on the nature of Christ, was deeply unconventional for his time and rooted in his intense study of scripture and early Christian texts. Newton, a devout but heterodox Christian, rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that God exists as three co-equal persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Instead, he leaned toward a form of Arianism, a non-Trinitarian theology that views Jesus Christ as a distinct, subordinate entity to God the Father.

Key points of Newton's Christology include:

Rejection of the Trinity: Newton believed the doctrine of the Trinity was a corruption of original Christianity, introduced by later church councils (notably Nicaea in 325 CE). He argued it was not supported by the earliest biblical texts and was a product of theological and political compromise.Subordination of Christ: Newton saw Jesus as the Son of God, divine in a sense, but not co-equal or co-eternal with God the Father. He viewed Christ as a created being, exalted by God but ontologically inferior, aligning with Arian or semi-Arian views.

Scriptural Basis: Newton’s Christology was grounded in his meticulous analysis of the Bible, particularly the Greek New Testament. He studied early manuscripts and believed that passages supporting the Trinity, like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), were later interpolations.

Historical Corruption: He argued that the early church, especially after the 4th century, distorted Christ’s true nature under the influence of Greek philosophy and Roman imperial politics. He saw Athanasius, a key Trinitarian figure, as a corrupter of doctrine.Scriptural Basis: Newton’s Christology was grounded in his meticulous analysis of the Bible, particularly the Greek New Testament. He studied early manuscripts and believed that passages supporting the Trinity, like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), were later interpolations.

Historical Corruption: He argued that the early church, especially after the 4th century, distorted Christ’s true nature under the influence of Greek philosophy and Roman imperial politics. He saw Athanasius, a key Trinitarian figure, as a corrupter of doctrine.Secrecy: Newton kept his views private, as anti-Trinitarianism was considered heresy in 17th-century England and could have cost him his position at Cambridge or even his life. He expressed his beliefs in private manuscripts, such as Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Paradoxical Questions concerning the morals & actions of Athanasius & his followers.

Christ as Mediator: Newton emphasized Christ’s role as a mediator between God and humanity, a divine figure chosen by God to fulfill a redemptive purpose, but not as God Himself.Newton’s Christology reflects his broader approach to theology: rigorous, skeptical of tradition, and driven by a desire to return to what he saw as the purity of early Christianity. His views were shaped by his study of patristic writings, Jewish theology, and his rejection of metaphysical speculations ungrounded in scripture. While his scientific work overshadowed his theological writings, his Christological beliefs were a central part of his intellectual life, though they remained largely hidden during his lifetime.

If you want specific details from Newton’s manuscripts or how his views compared to other contemporary theologians, let me know!Newton’s Christology reflects his broader approach to theology: rigorous, skeptical of tradition, and driven by a desire to return to what he saw as the purity of early Christianity. His views were shaped by his study of patristic writings, Jewish theology, and his rejection of metaphysical speculations ungrounded in scripture. While his scientific work overshadowed his theological writings, his Christological beliefs were a central part of his intellectual life, though they remained largely hidden during his lifetime.

If you want specific details from Newton’s manuscripts or how his views compared to other contemporary theologians, let me know!

On an interstellar visitor

Darwinism is universal acid to sound culture.

John West on Darwin’s Culturally Corrosive Idea

Andrew McDiarmid

On a classic episode of ID the Future, catch the first half of a public talk by political scientist John West on how Darwinism has poisoned Western culture. In the lecture, delivered at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, West explores how Darwin’s purely materialistic theory of evolution has drained meaning from nature, undercut the idea of inherent human dignity, and fueled the rise of scientific racism in the 20th century. Dr. West is author of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science.

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Friday, 25 April 2025

The universal acid of theism?

File under "well said" CXVII

"My shield is God Most High, who saves the upright in heart."

Psalm ch.7:10 New International Version

GROK on building an ethical android

Ensuring humanoid robots remain ethical as they become more autonomous involves embedding robust frameworks into their design, deployment, and oversight. Here’s a concise breakdown of key strategies:

Ethical Programming: Hardcode foundational ethical principles, like Asimov’s Three Laws or variations, into their core decision-making algorithms. These should prioritize human safety, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, while allowing flexibility for context-specific moral reasoning.

Transparent AI Models: Use interpretable AI systems so developers and users can understand how robots make decisions. Black-box models should be avoided to ensure accountability and traceability of ethical choices.

Continuous Oversight: Implement real-time monitoring systems to track robot behavior. Autonomous robots should have "ethical kill switches" or remote intervention capabilities to halt actions that deviate from ethical norms.

Value Alignment: Train robots on diverse, inclusive datasets reflecting global ethical perspectives to avoid cultural biases. Regularly update these datasets to adapt to evolving societal values.

Regulatory Frameworks: Establish international standards and certifications for ethical robot behavior, enforced by independent auditing bodies. These should mandate regular ethical stress-testing of autonomous systems.

Human-in-the-Loop: For high-stakes decisions, require human approval or supervision to ensure robots don’t act unilaterally in morally ambiguous situations.

Public Engagement: Involve ethicists, policymakers, and the public in shaping the moral parameters of robots to ensure broad societal acceptance and trust.

Challenges include balancing autonomy with control, resolving conflicting ethical principles, and preventing malicious reprogramming. Ongoing research, like that from groups such as the IEEE’s Ethically Aligned Design initiative, emphasizes iterative testing and global collaboration to address these issues.

Living fossils?

The east india company: a brief history

Thursday, 24 April 2025

GROK on the historicity of christians having to fight wild beast in the imperial roman empire.

1Corinthians ch.15:32NIV"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,

for tomorrow we die.”"

Yes, Christians were sometimes forced to fight wild beasts in the arenas of Imperial Rome as a form of execution or public spectacle. This practice, known as damnatio ad bestias ("condemnation to beasts"), was a brutal punishment used by Roman authorities, particularly during periods of persecution under emperors like Nero (54–68 CE) and Diocletian (284–305 CE). Christians, viewed as threats to Roman religious and social order due to their refusal to worship pagan gods or the emperor, were among those subjected to this fate.

Historical accounts, such as those by early Christian writers like Tertullian and Eusebius, describe Christians being thrown to lions, bears, or other wild animals in amphitheaters like the Colosseum. The Acts of the Martyrs, a collection of early Christian texts, also records instances of believers facing beasts as a test of faith. For example, during the persecution under Nero, Christians were reportedly killed in various ways, including being mauled by animals, as described by the Roman historian Tacitus in his Annals (15.44).

However, the frequency of such events may have been exaggerated in later Christian tradition to emphasize martyrdom. Not all Christians faced beasts; some were crucified, burned, or executed by other means. The spectacle of Christians fighting or being killed by animals was partly intended to entertain crowds and deter others from joining the faith.

If you want more details or specific examples, let me know!However, the frequency of such events may have been exaggerated in later Christian tradition to emphasize martyrdom. Not all Christians faced beasts; some were crucified, burned, or executed by other means. The spectacle of Christians fighting or being killed by animals was partly intended to entertain crowds and deter others from joining the faith.

Return of the mastodon?

GROK 3 on the league of nations.

The League of Nations was an international organization established on January 10, 1920, following World War I, with the aim of maintaining global peace and preventing future conflicts. Proposed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points, it was formalized through the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the League was the first major attempt at a permanent international body to promote cooperation and resolve disputes diplomatically. However, its effectiveness was limited by structural weaknesses, lack of enforcement power, and the absence or withdrawal of key nations.

Origins and Formation (1918–1920)

Context: World War I (1914–1918) caused unprecedented devastation, killing millions and destabilizing economies. The desire to prevent another such war drove the creation of an international body.

Wilson’s Vision: In 1918, Wilson’s Fourteen Points outlined a plan for peace, with the League as a cornerstone to foster collective security and diplomacy.

Treaty of Versailles: Signed in June 1919, it included the Covenant of the League of Nations, outlining its structure and objectives. The League officially began operations in January 1920.

Membership: Initially, 42 countries joined, growing to 58 by the 1930s. Notable absences included the United States, whose Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles due to concerns over sovereignty and isolationist sentiments.

Structure and Objectives

Main Bodies:

Assembly: All member states had one vote, meeting annually to discuss global issues.

Council: A smaller body with permanent (e.g., Britain, France, Italy, Japan) and rotating members, addressing specific crises.

Secretariat: Administrative arm, led by a Secretary-General.

Permanent Court of International Justice: Established in 1922 to settle legal disputes between nations.

Objectives:

Prevent war through collective security and diplomacy.

Promote disarmament, international cooperation, and humanitarian efforts (e.g., health, labor standards).

Administer former colonial territories through mandates (e.g., Middle East, Africa).The League achieved some successes in its early years, particularly in minor disputes and humanitarian work:

Dispute Resolution:

Aaland Islands (1921): Mediated between Sweden and Finland, granting the islands to Finland with autonomy guarantees.

Upper Silesia (1921): Resolved a German-Polish border dispute through a plebiscite and partition.

Greece-Bulgaria (1925): Halted a potential conflict after Greek incursions into Bulgaria.

Humanitarian Efforts:

Tackled refugee crises, notably for Russians and Armenians post-war.

Combated global health issues (e.g., typhus epidemics) through the League’s Health Organization.

Addressed human trafficking and opium trade.

Mandates System: Oversaw territories like Palestine (Britain) and South West Africa (South Africa), though criticized as veiled colonialism.

Challenges and Failures (1920s–1930s)

The League’s weaknesses became evident as global tensions rose:

Structural Flaws:

Unanimous voting in the Assembly and Council paralyzed decision-making.

No military force to enforce decisions; relied on economic sanctions or moral pressure.

Key Absences:

The U.S. never joined, weakening the League’s authority.

Germany joined in 1926 but left in 1933; Japan left in 1933; Italy in 1937; the Soviet Union joined late (1934) and was expelled in 1939.

Major Failures:

Manchuria Crisis (1931–1933): Japan invaded Manchuria, and the League’s condemnation (Lytton Report) led to Japan’s withdrawal from the League. No effective action was taken.

Abyssinia Crisis (1935–1936): Italy invaded Ethiopia. The League imposed sanctions, but Britain and France’s reluctance to enforce them (e.g., Suez Canal access) allowed Italy’s conquest.Disarmament Failure: The 1932–1934 Disarmament Conference collapsed as Germany, under Hitler, rearmed and left the League.

Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and German Aggression: The League was sidelined as Nazi Germany annexed Austria (1938) and Czechoslovakia (1939), and the Spanish conflict raged without League intervention.

Decline and Dissolution (1939–1946)

World War II: The League was irrelevant during the war (1939–1945), as its mechanisms failed to prevent aggression by Germany, Italy, and Japan. It held its last Assembly in 1939.

Soviet-Finnish War (1939): The League expelled the Soviet Union for invading Finland, its only such expulsion, but this had little impact.

Dissolution: In April 1946, the League formally dissolved, transferring its assets and some functions (e.g., mandates) to the newly formed United Nations (UN).Legacy:

The League’s failures highlighted the need for a stronger international body, influencing the UN’s design (e.g., Security Council with veto powers).

Its humanitarian work and technical organizations (e.g., health, labor) laid groundwork for UN agencies like WHO and ILO.

Demonstrated the limits of collective security without universal participation and enforcement.

Google AI on whether it would be coherent for an agnostic to embrace ID

Yes, an agnostic can believe in intelligent design. Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of God is unknown or unknowable, while intelligent design (ID) is a theory that proposes an intelligent cause for the origin of life rather than natural processes. An agnostic could accept the evidence presented by ID for a designer without necessarily committing to a specific God or religious belief.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Agnosticism and the Knowability of God:

Agnostics believe that the existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be definitively proven or disproven through scientific or philosophical means. They may hold that the question is ultimately unanswerable or that the answer is beyond human comprehension.

Intelligent Design and the Role of a Designer:

Intelligent design proponents argue that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than purely natural processes like evolution. They often point to complexities like irreducibly complex biological systems as evidence for a designer.

The Agnostic's Position:

An agnostic can agree with the ID argument for a designer without needing to believe in a specific God or religion. They may acknowledge the apparent evidence for design without committing to a particular divine entity.

Examples:

Some individuals who are agnostics on the existence of God might still be open to the idea of an intelligent force behind life, even if they don't believe in a particular deity.

In essence, while agnosticism focuses on the unknowability of ultimate reality, intelligent design focuses on the apparent evidence for a designer in the natural world. An agnostic can accept the ID claim without committing to a specific religious or theological framework.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/seeking-god-in-science-an-atheist-defends-intelligent-design/

Wednesday, 23 April 2025

Sea turtles global positioning system for the win.

Sea Turtles and Their Trusty Magnetic Compass

Eric Cassell

Many different animals use the Earth’s magnetic field to navigate when migrating. Because of their impressive long-distance migration, birds are probably the animals best known for their feats of navigation, including the use of a magnetic compass. Sea turtles also well known for impressive navigation and migration.

The magnetic field has three components — declination (angle relative to true north), inclination (angle relative to horizontal), and intensity (field strength). The inclination angle points straight down at the North Pole, is horizontal at the equator, and points straight up at the South Pole. All of the magnetic field components vary geographically. Unlike latitude, there is no regular variation in the Earth’s magnetic characteristics with longitude, which means there is no simple relationship between the detected field and the actual longitude. A simple compass only detects horizontal direction.

Despite this, as described in my book Animal Algorithms1, research found a mechanism in loggerhead sea turtles that allows them to use the magnetic field to calculate longitude, information the turtles use to navigate on their migration journey in the North Atlantic Ocean. Similarly, it was also previously determined that spiny lobsters can detect longitude as well as latitude, and can orient in the proper direction toward home from a distance of 23 miles. Being able to detect multiple components of the magnetic field, specifically the intensity and inclination, enables animals to form a bicoordinate map. The use of this map sense provides much more accurate navigation capability than is available with just a simple compass.

Magnetic Compass Memory

A recent paper published in the journal Nature examined several aspects related to how sea turtles use the magnetic field. One was their ability to remember specific geomagnetic locations. The other was to attempt to determine which magnetoreception system that sea turtles employ. Regarding the first aspect, one conclusion from the research is that, “The results provide strong evidence that loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) can learn the magnetic signatures of specific geographical areas. Such an ability has, to our knowledge, never before been demonstrated in any animal.”2 The paper explains the findings in more detail, “Our results demonstrate that turtles can remember the magnetic signature of an area over time spans relevant to their migration patterns; turtles continued to recognize the magnetic field in which they had been fed 4 months after the conditioning period, despite having no additional exposure to the learned magnetic field. Results also demonstrate that turtles can learn the magnetic signatures associated with more than one location.” The practical implication of the results could explain how sea turtles can accurately return to their nesting beaches and foraging regions, even after long time periods. Sea turtles can go several years between visits to their home nesting beaches.

Magnetoreception Mechanism

Despite a significant amount of research and discoveries about the use of the magnetic field by animals, as stated in the Nature paper, “The biophysical mechanism or mechanisms underlying the magnetic map and compass senses have not been determined unequivocally in any animal.” Previous research has shown that determination of specific magnetic signatures requires the detection of both inclination and intensity. Several different mechanisms of magnetoreception have been proposed. One of the mechanisms is the so-called “radical pair theory” that light induces the formation of radical pairs, and that the spin state of these electrons is influenced by the magnetic field. This is a chemical process, with the leading hypothesis involving cryptochrome, a photoreceptive protein.

The research documented in the Nature paper included an experiment to determine if radio frequency fields affect turtle’s magnetoreception. If that is the case, it would provide confirmation that detection is based on the radical pair mechanism. The results showed that the map sense was not affected by radio frequency fields, but that the magnetic compass is affected. The results appear to indicate that the magnetic map sense of sea turtles does not rely on chemical magnetoreception. The authors of the paper observe that the results indicate that, “Two different mechanisms of magnetoreception probably exist in sea turtles; a mechanism underlying the compass sense that is disrupted by radiofrequency fields, and a mechanism underlying the map sense that is not.”3

The obvious question is: Why would an animal have two different mechanisms of magnetoreception? The paper’s authors speculate that the turtle migration pattern is achieved, “In part by using their magnetic map sense to identify magnetic signatures encountered along the route and then using their magnetic compass sense to swim in appropriate directions to help them progress along the migratory route.”

Indicating Intelligent Design

The authors speculate on the origin of two different methods of magnetoreception, “In principle, dual mechanisms might arise if the optimal way to detect direction differs from the best way to detect magnetic parameters associated with positional information, resulting in two magnetic senses, each optimized for different tasks.” Of course, just because it makes logical sense from the standpoint of optimal biological design, it does not mean it will occur through the Darwinian process of random variation and natural selection. In addition, there is a significant difference between a relatively simple directional compass and a true map sense. The latter requires several elements: detection of multiple components of the magnetic field; construction of a map; conversion of the magnetic field measurements to map coordinates; storing coordinates of locations in memory; and, relating a destination goal to the map coordinates. All of these elements exhibit specified complexity that is indicative of intelligent design.

Notes

Eric Cassell, Animal Algorithms (Discovery Institute Press: Seattle, 2021).

Goforth, et al., “Learned magnetic map cues and two mechanisms of magnetoreception in turtles,” Nature, Vol. 638, 8052 27 February 2025, 1015-1022.

Goforth, et al., “Learned magnetic map cues and two mechanisms of magnetoreception in turtles.”

Tuesday, 22 April 2025

Yet even more on the future of energy.

How to reinvent architecture?

Monday, 21 April 2025

Even mouse brain for the win?

Even a Mouse Brain Reveals Staggering Complexity

Denyse O' Leary

The science media have been ablaze recently with a major achievement: Princeton neuroscientists have mapped the staggering complexity of a cubic millimetre of the visual area of a mouse’s brain — about a poppy seed’s worth. That was a remarkable achievement on account of the complexity of even a mouse’s brain.

Mouse Meets Matrix

PBS tells us that the mouse gave the scientists’ data by watching, among other things, The Matrix: (1999):

Thanks to a mouse watching clips from “The Matrix,” scientists have created the largest functional map of a brain to date — a diagram of the wiring connecting 84,000 neurons as they fire off messages.

Using a piece of that mouse’s brain about the size of a poppy seed, the researchers identified those neurons and traced how they communicated via branch-like fibers through a surprising 500 million junctions called synapses.

The massive dataset, published Wednesday by the journal Nature, marks a step toward unraveling the mystery of how our brains work. The data, assembled in a 3D reconstruction colored to delineate different brain circuitry, is open to scientists worldwide for additional research — and for the simply curious to take a peek.

“HOW A MOUSE WATCHING ‘THE MATRIX’ HELPED SCIENTISTS CREATE THE LARGEST MAP OF A BRAIN TO DATE,” APRIL 9, 2025. THE PAPERS FROM THE PROJECT ARE HERE

At the New York Times, science writer Carl Zimmer provides a bit of perspective.

The human brain is so complex that scientific brains have a hard time making sense of it. A piece of neural tissue the size of a grain of sand might be packed with hundreds of thousands of cells linked together by miles of wiring. In 1979, Francis Crick, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist, concluded that the anatomy and activity in just a cubic millimeter of brain matter would forever exceed our understanding.

“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.

Forty-six years later, a team of more than 100 scientists has achieved that impossible, by recording the cellular activity and mapping the structure in a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain — less than one percent of its full volume. In accomplishing this feat, they amassed 1.6 petabytes of data — the equivalent of 22 years of nonstop high-definition video.

“AN ADVANCE IN BRAIN RESEARCH THAT WAS ONCE CONSIDERED IMPOSSIBLE”, APRIL 9, 2025

At the New York Times, science writer Carl Zimmer provides a bit of perspective:

“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.

“AN ADVANCE IN BRAIN RESEARCH THAT WAS ONCE CONSIDERED IMPOSSIBLE”, APRIL 9, 2025

Materialism’s Last Stop

The underlying message of Zimmer’s article is that the human brain is really the same sort of thing, just more complex, and we will reduce it to a map. And, although no one quite says it, the human mind is to be understood as merely the output of a complex brain. The news release from Princeton made that clear:

“It’s just a beginning,” [team co-lead] Seung said. “But it’s opening the door to a new era of realistic brain simulations. And so the next question becomes — and people will ask — can that ever be done with a human brain? And then the next question is, well, even if you could simulate a human brain, and it was very faithful, would it be conscious?”

When asked what he thought about it, he laughed. “I don’t have any more authority to make a statement on that than you do. But when people say, ‘I don’t believe a simulation of a brain would be conscious,’ then I say, ‘Well, how do you know you’re not a simulation?’”

SCOTT LYON, “SCIENTISTS MAP THE HALF-BILLION CONNECTIONS THAT ALLOW MICE TO SEE,” APRIL 9, 2025

The problem with Seung’s reasoning is, of course, this: If we don’t know that we are not simulations, we also don’t know that anything we think we know is real. Life in The Matrix is a high price to pay in order to maintain a materialist view of the mind.

And if it takes a hundred scientists to map a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain, even the material world — never mind the immaterial world of the mind — is not likely to have a simple explanation.

On the triumph of the design heuristic

Plato’s Revenge: Mathematical Biologist Richard Sternberg Foresaw Major Developments in Biology

Brian Miller

A week from today, Discovery Institute Press will release David Klinghoffer’s book Plato’s Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome. It can be pre-ordered here. The book traces the ideas and the intellectual journey of mathematical biologist Richard Sternberg, who offers rigorous scientific evidence that the true control center of life lies not in DNA alone, but in a timeless, non-material mathematical structure. Influenced by the renowned theoretical biologist Robert Rosen, Sternberg carries forward the tradition of relational biology — a framework increasingly recognized by visionary scientists as a foundation for the future of biological understanding. Drawing on its principles, Sternberg anticipated many of the most significant biological discoveries of the past two decades

Demise of Junk DNA

One of the clearest tests of the predictive power of evolutionary theory versus intelligent design concerns the proportion of the human genome that is nonfunctional. Under the evolutionary framework, a substantial amount of “junk DNA” — nonfunctional genetic material — is expected as a byproduct of random mutations ( here, here). In contrast, proponents of intelligent design predicted that most of the genome would have a function, even if not yet fully understood.

In 2002, Richard Sternberg published a paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences challenging the assumption that vast portions of the genome are nonfunctional, proposing instead that much of this DNA likely serves important biological roles, such as regulating protein production. Other intelligent design theorists, including Forrest Mims, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, also predicted function in junk DNA. Subsequent research by the ENCODE project and other groups has supported this view, demonstrating that most of the genome is biochemically functional and undermining the earlier assumption that “junk DNA” was largely useless (here, here).

Information Beyond DNA

Sternberg also anticipated decades ago that much of the information for life resides outside of DNA. Multiple studies have confirmed this prediction. Jonathan Wells provided several examples in his 2014 review article “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA.” More recently, Oxford physiologist Denis Noble argued that DNA is not the privileged center of control for organisms, but instead, “organisms control their genomes.” He summarizes his dethroning of DNA as follows:

To think that the genome completely determines the organism is almost as absurd as thinking that the pipes in a large cathedral organ determine what the organist plays. Of course, it was the composer who did that in writing the score, and the organist himself who interprets it. The pipes are his passive instruments until he brings them to life in a pattern that he imposes on them, just as multi-cellular organisms use the same genome to generate all the 200 or so different types of cells in their bodies by activating different expression patterns.

Similarly, developmental and synthetic biologist Michael Levin, at Harvard and Tufts, has argued that an animal’s overall body architecture is not directly determined by DNA but by electric fields generated by the developing embryo. He has also argued (here) for higher levels in the organizational hierarchy controlling lower levels:

A top-down model would specify how the target morphology is represented within tissues, what cellular processes underlie the computations that drive the system from a novel starting condition to that goal state (and stop when it has been achieved), and how those computations about large-scale anatomical metrics become transduced into low-level marching orders for cells and molecular signalling cascades….Patterns of bioelectric signalling have been shown to serve as master regulators (module activators) and prepatterns for complex anatomical structures, coordinating downstream gene expression cascades and single cell behaviours towards specific patterning.

These and other researchers have validated Sternberg’s expectation of an extended genome (i.e., information beyond DNA).

Mind Before Matter

Sternberg’s most striking prediction is that the genome is immaterial, implying that standard algorithms do not govern biological processes. This non-algorithmic view of life is gaining increasing recognition. As I wrote here last week, Garte, Marshall, and Kauffman (2025) recently emphasized emerging research that not only supports the non-algorithmic nature of biology but also argues that life is fundamentally governed by cognition (see, “New Article Calls for a Philosophical Revolution in Biology, Placing Mind Over Matter”). The centrality of cognition is further emphasized in the Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology volume Evolution “On Purpose”: Teleonomy in Living Systems, edited by Peter A. Corning et al., which features multiple chapters defending the foundational role of cognition and advancing the case for goal-directedness and purpose in biological systems.

Professor Michael Levin, mentioned earlier, coincides still more strikingly with Sternberg by arguing (here) that biology is governed by Platonic forms:

Here, I discuss an unconventional research program into the origin of these patterns. I argue that genetics and environment are not sufficient to explain or make use of the remarkable intelligence of the agential material of life. I argue that the current reliance on emergence is a mysterian approach that limits progress, and instead propose a systematic investigation of the patterns of life and mind that ingress into both biological and synthetic embodiments. In short, I make the metaphysical hypothesis that the emergent patterns we observe are not random but are part of an ordered Platonic space of forms which have a causal influence on the outcomes of evolution and engineering.

He even argues that some of the Platonic forms correspond to minds:

I have argued for a Pythagorean or radical Platonist view in which some of the causal input into mind and life originates outside the physical world. A number of mathematicians, computer scientists, and even physicists, including Heisenberg, Tegmark, Deutsch, Ellis, and Penrose have expressed variants of this stance. But this position is unpopular with philosophers of mind because it is fundamentally a dualist theory (by emphasizing causes that are not to be found in physical events), and implies panpsychism (because a very wide range of physical objects could be interfaces to varieties of minds). I have argued that a kind of panpsychism is unavoidable, and it seems that by taking what mathematicians do seriously, we have already abandoned the physicalist worldview; all that remains is to notice that evolution (not just human mathematicians) is exploring the same space of patterns and embrace the idea that since we are patterns too, patterns can be agential (and thus, Platonic space can include minds, not just passive truths)

Sternberg may well have predicted and laid the groundwork for the next great scientific revolution. Only time will tell.

What's in a name?VII

Find article here.

4. There is strong evidence that Matthew (and possibly other NT writers) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). If this is so, the inspired Bible writer would surely have used the personal name of God! The Hebrew manuscripts at that time (and for many hundreds of years thereafter) contained the Name nearly 7000 times. Whenever Matthew (and the Hebrew-speaking Jesus and his Apostles) quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have used the Name just as it is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

The WT Society also believes Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic):

"In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: `Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.... Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.' Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the `Old Testament' that contained the name." - p. 24, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 1984.

Noted trinitarian scholar F. F. Bruce agrees that the Gospel of Matthew (at least) was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and cites another source as evidence:

"Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and his Apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it `Hebrew,' thus not distinguishing between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias [c. 60-130 A. D.]: `Matthew compiled the Logia [literally, "the collection" - Thayer] in the `Hebrew' speech [i.e. Aramaic], and everyone translated them [into Greek] as best he could.' " - p. 38, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So, whether originally written in Greek or "Hebrew," the writings of the New Testament should have used the Name of God, especially in quotes from the Old Testament.

And when we restore the name of God to the NT, we eliminate the confusing contradiction of Matt. 22:43-45 and its parallels (Mk 12:36-37; Lk. 20:42-44) where Jesus quoted Ps. 110:1.

"How does David in the Spirit call him `Lord,' [kurios] saying, `The LORD [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], "sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet." ' If David then calls him `Lord,' [kurios] how is he his son?" - Matt. 22:43-45, NASB.

Literally this says in the NT Greek:

"How therefore David in spirit is calling him Lord [kurios] saying Said `Lord [kurios] to the Lord [kurios] of me Be sitting out of right hand of me until likely I should put the enemies of you beneath the feet of you'? If therefore David is calling him Lord [kurios], how son of him is he?"- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985.

First, of course, it doesn't say "The LORD said..."; it actually says "LORD said..." because the original was "JEHOVAH" (without "the," of course) and "Lord" was substituted for this name later (still without "the").

Second, in this version there are two uses of "Lord" [kurios], but Jesus speaks as though there is only one (because there really was only one "Lord" [kurios in the Greek here] at the time he spoke it! The other word that later copyists changed to kurios was originally "JEHOVAH" as can be seen by actually looking at the OT manuscripts that have the scripture Jesus was quoting!).

Third, not only is it confusing to have two uses of kurios here, but, if we insist on this version, it would be grammatically much more accurate to select the first use of this word (the substitute for "JEHOVAH") as the one Jesus was referring to. Since he said, "If David calls him `Lord'..." but not "David calls him `the Lord' (or `my Lord')...", it would be proper to say that Jesus was referring to the first `LORD' (which is without the word "the") in that quote from the OT. In reality, of course, he was actually referring to the "second" use of kurios as found in modern texts! All this would be smoothed out if the name were simply restored to the NT where it obviously was originally: "JEHOVAH said to my Lord" as found in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scripture at Ps. 110:1 which Jesus was quoting - ASV.

"Since confession of Jesus as Lord was the mark of the Christian and since for Christians there was no other Lord, it was natural for Paul to speak of `the Lord' when he wished to refer to Jesus. It is true that the same title was used to refer to God the Father, and that this can lead to a certain ambiguity as to whether God or Jesus is meant (this is especially the case in Acts; ...); generally, however, `LORD' is used for God by Paul almost exclusively in quotations from the OT" - p. 590, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.

Again, if the name of God were restored, there would not be so much "ambiguity" because these uses of `Lord' in quotations from the OT were originally `JEHOVAH' and hence there was no ambiguity or risk of confusion at all until later copyists changed that divine name in the NT manuscripts to kurios!

5. Of course Jesus used the name "JEHOVAH" in such places. He was a speaker of Hebrew who was quoting (or reading) scripture to other speakers of Hebrew. Of course he would use the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint scriptures when quoting to these people. It would have been ludicrous for Jesus to have quoted from the Septuagint to these people when most of them would not have understood the Greek language of the Septuagint in the first place.

The native-born Jews in Israel spoke, of course, Hebrew. The Roman conquerors and administrators of the Empire spoke Latin. And the many businessmen and commercial travelers who visited and resided in Israel understood, in addition to their own languages, the common language of commerce in the Mediterranean world: Greek.

Of course there were some Jews who could speak Latin and/or Greek. There were some Romans who could speak Greek (and probably even a very few who could speak Hebrew also). And there were undoubtedly some foreigners there who could speak Latin (and probably a very few who could speak Hebrew also). But, by and large, if you wished to communicate with the majority of the Jews, you would have to do it in Hebrew (or the closely-related Aramaic). And if you wished to communicate with the Romans, you would have to do it in Latin, and so on.

So when Jesus was teaching the Jews from the holy scriptures, he was doing so in Hebrew.

If we should doubt such an obvious conclusion that the majority of Jews did not understand Greek (and therefore Jesus would not have taught them by quoting or reading from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint), we only need to look at John 19:19, 20.

"And Pilate wrote an inscription also .... Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek." - NASB

Obviously the Latin was so the Romans could read the information about Jesus, and the Greek was so the foreign merchants and travelers could read about Jesus. But Pilate certainly would not have gone to the trouble of writing 1/3 of the sign in Hebrew if most of the Jews could already read one of the other two languages on that sign! It is obvious from this passage alone that many of them could not understand Greek and needed to read Hebrew to understand what Pilate wanted them to know!

Therefore, Jesus must have quoted from the Hebrew Bible when reading to the Jews. And the Hebrew Bible which he quoted at

Mt 21:42 actually says: "This is JEHOVAH'S doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)

Mt 22:37 - "And you shall love JEHOVAH your God with all your heart..." (Deut. 6:5)

Mt 22:44 - "JEHOVAH said to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand...'" (Ps. 110:1)

Jn 12:38 - "... to whom has the arm of JEHOVAH been revealed?" (Is. 53:1)

"Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir [`Second century rabbi who prepared a systematic edition of traditional Jewish law and doctrine, which paved the way for the final edition of the Mishnah' - p. 479, An Encyclopedia of Religion] are said to have made unfriendly puns on the word Euangelion [`the Greek word for "Gospel"' - p. 102] by altering its vowels to make it read 'Awen-gillayon or `Awon-gillayon, meaning [in Hebrew/Aramaic] something like `Iniquity of the Margin' ...." - p. 102, The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So the word `margin' (gillayon) was used in a derogatory way for a Gospel ("most probably ... the Gospel according to Matthew" as first written in Hebrew or Aramaic - p. 102) of the Christians by these two very early Rabbis.

And when this word is made plural (`margins') it becomes gillayonim (or gilyohnim). Therefore, it is probable that this word was used derogatorily to denote copies of a Christian Gospel written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

7. "From the middle of the 2^nd century AD [around 150 AD] Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms [instead of the original traditional Jewish terms]" – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

8. We can see that the source of Halleluia in existing copies of the Septuagint is really two words in the original Hebrew. For example the Hahlayloo Yah of Psalm 146:1 is obviously two separate Hebrew words: Hahlayloo [`praise ye'] and Yah [`Jehovah']. And yet, our oldest existing copies of the ancient Septuagint show these two words combined into one `new' word in Greek: Halleluia. And the same Greek word, Halleluia [ JAllhlouia], which was found in the earliest copies of John's Revelation, was likewise treated by copyists of the 2nd century. Whether John himself had combined the two words into one for the benefit of those Hellenic Jews to whom he wrote (who were familiar with the term as it was found in the Septuagint) or whether early copyists had done it to conform with the Septuagint is not the point here.

9. And, of course, it was passed along from its Septuagint use to other early Christian writings:

"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim." - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.

"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.

10. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree. - http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/septuag.htm - RDB.

Pages

Search This Blog