Sunday, September 16, 2007
Presented as 'Peter's testament'
My longtime blog pal Mark has asked some questions that deserve to be answered in their own post. It started when I said in this post about II Peter: "Whether Peter wrote it or not it's an authentic apostolic view."
Wherein Mark, in a comment said: "What evidence does any ... scholar(s) have that Peter didn't write 2 Peter? Do they have a statement, certified authentic, from Peter himself to the effect that he didn't write it? Why does anyone feel the need to doubt it? What would be the purpose of lying about the author? And most importantly, What would be the point?"
And I said: "Mark, just do some research if you want to know more about textual criticism, biblical studies and hypotheses surrounding the authorship of various Scriptures. The only 'why' question that is germane is 'Why do the research at all?' And the answer is: To use the minds God gave us to get at the truth, and to get away from making an idol out of the Bible."
[I note here that these scholars are Christian scholars, not detractors out to bring ill repute upon the Scriptures. -- ER]
And Drlobo then provided a lengthy but basic -- as are all Wikipedia articles -- account of the scholarly discussions surrounding the authorship of II Peter.
Wherein Mark then said: "First, I wasn't being argumentative. I was just asking. [I apologized for my assumption. --ER] So, OK. You've answered the question about what evidence these scholars have that lead them to believe Peter didn't write it. I'm afraid I am unconvinced. Once more folks (who I suspect are really really wanting some proof to discredit God) are relying on no real evidence, just what one might call educated guessing. It wouldn't fly in an impartial court of law. But you've answered the question that I asked. Now, I ask again, What would be the point of saying Peter wrote it if, in fact he hadn't? What purpose would that serve God, or any of the apostles? Not looking to argue, but the only reason I can think of that someone would claim Peter didn't write the letter that bears his name would be to deny that the inspiration came from God."
And so, first, I respond with the comment in the section called "To the Reader" in The HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version, which is now "my Bible," from Bruce M. Metzger, speaking for the committee of scholars who did the translating, which, I think, can be accepted as being a voice representing the entire work:
"In traditional Judaism and Christianity, the Bible has been more than a historical document to be preserved or a classic of literature to be cherished and admired; it is recognized as the unique record of God's dealing with people over the ages. The Old Testament sets forth the call of a special people to enter into covenant relation of the God of justice and steadfast love and to bring God's law to the nations. The New Testament records the life and work of Jesus Christ, the one in who, 'the Word became flesh,' as well as describes the rise and spread of the early Christian Church. The Bible carries its full message, not to those regard it simply as a noble literary heritage of the past or who wish to use it to enhance political purposes and advance otherwise desirable goals, but to all persons and communities who read it so that they may discern and understand what God is saying to them. ... It is the hope and prayer of the translators that this version of the Bible may continue to hold a large placed in congregational life and to speak to all readers, young and old alike, helping them to understand and believe and respond to its message."
And so, having established, by the publishers' own voice, that there is no intent to discredit the Bible, I turn to the comments of the scholar who, in this compilation of the Scriptures, was responsible for II Peter, Richard J. Bauckham, Ph.D., professor of New Testament studies, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland:
"The Second Letter of Peter is presented as Peter's testament, i.e., an account of Peter's teaching as he wished it to be rememebered after his death. (1: 12-15). If Peter himself wrote it, he must have done so shortly before his matyrdom in Rome in 64/65 C.E. Most scholars, however, now believe it was written after Peter's death, with the writer following a literary convention of the time that allowed an author to attribute a 'testament' to a great figure of the past. 2 Peter was probably sent from the church of Rome and therefore attributed to the apostle who had for a time played a role in the leadership of that church. By writing in Peter's name, the author was able to restate and defend Peter's teaching in a situation in which opponents were criticising the apostolic message. He also expressed the normative value of the apolstolic teaching for the period after the death of the apostles."
So, in response to Mark's complaint, "the only reason I can think of that someone would claim Peter didn't write the letter that bears his name would be to deny that the inspiration came from God," I can only say, "Hardly."
--ER
Wherein Mark, in a comment said: "What evidence does any ... scholar(s) have that Peter didn't write 2 Peter? Do they have a statement, certified authentic, from Peter himself to the effect that he didn't write it? Why does anyone feel the need to doubt it? What would be the purpose of lying about the author? And most importantly, What would be the point?"
And I said: "Mark, just do some research if you want to know more about textual criticism, biblical studies and hypotheses surrounding the authorship of various Scriptures. The only 'why' question that is germane is 'Why do the research at all?' And the answer is: To use the minds God gave us to get at the truth, and to get away from making an idol out of the Bible."
[I note here that these scholars are Christian scholars, not detractors out to bring ill repute upon the Scriptures. -- ER]
And Drlobo then provided a lengthy but basic -- as are all Wikipedia articles -- account of the scholarly discussions surrounding the authorship of II Peter.
Wherein Mark then said: "First, I wasn't being argumentative. I was just asking. [I apologized for my assumption. --ER] So, OK. You've answered the question about what evidence these scholars have that lead them to believe Peter didn't write it. I'm afraid I am unconvinced. Once more folks (who I suspect are really really wanting some proof to discredit God) are relying on no real evidence, just what one might call educated guessing. It wouldn't fly in an impartial court of law. But you've answered the question that I asked. Now, I ask again, What would be the point of saying Peter wrote it if, in fact he hadn't? What purpose would that serve God, or any of the apostles? Not looking to argue, but the only reason I can think of that someone would claim Peter didn't write the letter that bears his name would be to deny that the inspiration came from God."
And so, first, I respond with the comment in the section called "To the Reader" in The HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version, which is now "my Bible," from Bruce M. Metzger, speaking for the committee of scholars who did the translating, which, I think, can be accepted as being a voice representing the entire work:
"In traditional Judaism and Christianity, the Bible has been more than a historical document to be preserved or a classic of literature to be cherished and admired; it is recognized as the unique record of God's dealing with people over the ages. The Old Testament sets forth the call of a special people to enter into covenant relation of the God of justice and steadfast love and to bring God's law to the nations. The New Testament records the life and work of Jesus Christ, the one in who, 'the Word became flesh,' as well as describes the rise and spread of the early Christian Church. The Bible carries its full message, not to those regard it simply as a noble literary heritage of the past or who wish to use it to enhance political purposes and advance otherwise desirable goals, but to all persons and communities who read it so that they may discern and understand what God is saying to them. ... It is the hope and prayer of the translators that this version of the Bible may continue to hold a large placed in congregational life and to speak to all readers, young and old alike, helping them to understand and believe and respond to its message."
And so, having established, by the publishers' own voice, that there is no intent to discredit the Bible, I turn to the comments of the scholar who, in this compilation of the Scriptures, was responsible for II Peter, Richard J. Bauckham, Ph.D., professor of New Testament studies, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland:
"The Second Letter of Peter is presented as Peter's testament, i.e., an account of Peter's teaching as he wished it to be rememebered after his death. (1: 12-15). If Peter himself wrote it, he must have done so shortly before his matyrdom in Rome in 64/65 C.E. Most scholars, however, now believe it was written after Peter's death, with the writer following a literary convention of the time that allowed an author to attribute a 'testament' to a great figure of the past. 2 Peter was probably sent from the church of Rome and therefore attributed to the apostle who had for a time played a role in the leadership of that church. By writing in Peter's name, the author was able to restate and defend Peter's teaching in a situation in which opponents were criticising the apostolic message. He also expressed the normative value of the apolstolic teaching for the period after the death of the apostles."
So, in response to Mark's complaint, "the only reason I can think of that someone would claim Peter didn't write the letter that bears his name would be to deny that the inspiration came from God," I can only say, "Hardly."
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Arguments over authorship of Biblical books are part and parcel of the history of Biblical criticism. I, however, find them irrelevant. Here is how I have settled the issue for myself, and I offer it only as my own way of dealing with what, for others, is a highly contentious issue. Ahem.
- The question of authorship is related to the issue of authority. That is, how can we take as authoritative a text purporting to be by one author (whose intent we may infer from extraneous sources) when it is discovered to be by another (whose intent we cannot infer)? Yet, as early as the late medieval period, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was called in to question, as well as the Apostolic origins of the Gospels. Textual criticism, what has come down to us now as "form criticism" is as old as Christian scholarship.
- That the texts were not rejected despite the acceptance of non-apostolic authorship, the non-Pauline authorship of certain epistles attributed to Paul, and the contradictory nature of the "history" presented in various OT books, for example Joshua versus Judges, shows that, for some at least, authority resides elsewhere than within the text itself.
- For me, this authority lies in two places. First, in the gift of God presenting to us, through the Holy Spirit, the opportunity to come to a deeper understanding of the faith through the bare, dead words on the page. Second, the authority comes from the history of the development of the canon, and the Church's reaffirmation of that canon through the centuries.
- The question of authorship, when it can come close to being ascertained with anything approaching certainty, is still a moot point, because it is not the text that enlivens, but God who enlivens the text for us.
This is a statement of faith, obviously, and unrelated to issues of reading and acceptance. But there you have it.
- The question of authorship is related to the issue of authority. That is, how can we take as authoritative a text purporting to be by one author (whose intent we may infer from extraneous sources) when it is discovered to be by another (whose intent we cannot infer)? Yet, as early as the late medieval period, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was called in to question, as well as the Apostolic origins of the Gospels. Textual criticism, what has come down to us now as "form criticism" is as old as Christian scholarship.
- That the texts were not rejected despite the acceptance of non-apostolic authorship, the non-Pauline authorship of certain epistles attributed to Paul, and the contradictory nature of the "history" presented in various OT books, for example Joshua versus Judges, shows that, for some at least, authority resides elsewhere than within the text itself.
- For me, this authority lies in two places. First, in the gift of God presenting to us, through the Holy Spirit, the opportunity to come to a deeper understanding of the faith through the bare, dead words on the page. Second, the authority comes from the history of the development of the canon, and the Church's reaffirmation of that canon through the centuries.
- The question of authorship, when it can come close to being ascertained with anything approaching certainty, is still a moot point, because it is not the text that enlivens, but God who enlivens the text for us.
This is a statement of faith, obviously, and unrelated to issues of reading and acceptance. But there you have it.
I don't want to get into this mess, but will say this: Some books are named as titles; some are named as bylines. Just as scholarly works or news accounts today may be ABOUT a person, or may be written BY the person. They just didn't have a stylebook when they wrote the Bible to make that clear, so we have to rely on scholarly research to compare the facts of history with the events as described to see whose point of view the piece is written in. And we compare writing styles and language use to see if it consistent. Doesn't change the matters of the faith, but does give us some idea which point of view is presented. Like the two versions of the story of Jesus' birth -- one represents Mary's family, one represents Joseph's family. Doesn't change the facts, just the point of view.
The 800 lb gorilla in the closet is
"inerrancy". The concept that the Bible is totally without error, and has gone unchanged since God dictated it to each of his amanuensises. Also that each and every book in the current protestant Bible was put there by the will of God.
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
fulltext:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
So that all the errors, scribe additions, orthodox removals, orthodox mistranslations, psuedopigraphias,internal contradictions, etc. are in God's design, a part of his inerrent word, as read in the Bible.
That is what this is really all about is it not?
"inerrancy". The concept that the Bible is totally without error, and has gone unchanged since God dictated it to each of his amanuensises. Also that each and every book in the current protestant Bible was put there by the will of God.
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
fulltext:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
So that all the errors, scribe additions, orthodox removals, orthodox mistranslations, psuedopigraphias,internal contradictions, etc. are in God's design, a part of his inerrent word, as read in the Bible.
That is what this is really all about is it not?
If you mean that even the errors are part of "God's plan," and these discussions and arguments and misunderstandings are, too -- which I would not automatically reject -- then we need another word besides "inerrant."
"Holy" comes to mind. And "sacred."
But that's not what the Chicago statement is stating.
The 800-pound gorilla has left the building, for me. I like what Geoffrey said, and I think it makes much more sense to see the Bible, rather than "God's revelation to man," as the main Jewish-Christian witness to encounters with, and the search to commune with, God.
The Word of God is in there. Some revelations are in there. The Truth is in there. But, it being a human project -- inspired
"Holy" comes to mind. And "sacred."
But that's not what the Chicago statement is stating.
The 800-pound gorilla has left the building, for me. I like what Geoffrey said, and I think it makes much more sense to see the Bible, rather than "God's revelation to man," as the main Jewish-Christian witness to encounters with, and the search to commune with, God.
The Word of God is in there. Some revelations are in there. The Truth is in there. But, it being a human project -- inspired
Well, I'm jes a dumb 'ol uneducated Fundamentalist, and I just don't git all them big 4 dolla' words drlobojo uses, I was jes wonderin'...
Why pretend the letter was written by someone else if it warn't?
What's the point?
Why pretend the letter was written by someone else if it warn't?
What's the point?
"...but to all persons and communities who read it so that they may discern and understand what God is saying to them. ..."
I found this section of the Metzger quote particularly interesting. Though it's a bit off topic, I think this statement illustrates a difference between those in ER's camp, as it were, vs. those in Mark and mine's. The difference can be explained by which word is emphasized(sp). Our side speaks of "what God is SAYING to them..." while yours speaks of "what God is saying to THEM..." that is, as opposed to us specifically. Would this be anywhere near accurate, ER, in your opinion?
I found this section of the Metzger quote particularly interesting. Though it's a bit off topic, I think this statement illustrates a difference between those in ER's camp, as it were, vs. those in Mark and mine's. The difference can be explained by which word is emphasized(sp). Our side speaks of "what God is SAYING to them..." while yours speaks of "what God is saying to THEM..." that is, as opposed to us specifically. Would this be anywhere near accurate, ER, in your opinion?
I agree that we ignore the aspect of errancy (which could just be simply exchanged for words like humanity, humanness) - errancy that exists because it deals with creatures who err constantly. That only underlines God's inerrancy and clemency placed in juxtaposition, because He is willing to deal in the midst of error.
Lots' daughters actions after their world's destruction, because not rigidly commentated and berated, just shows the patience with which God deals with our self-inflicted destructive and errant behavior.
Lots' daughters actions after their world's destruction, because not rigidly commentated and berated, just shows the patience with which God deals with our self-inflicted destructive and errant behavior.
# posted by 
: 8:56 AM
: 8:56 AM
Mark, I and others have given you plenty of information to answer your "why" question.
But in a nutshell: "To give the letter the authority of Peter."
Or in balder terms: "The author puts Peter's name on it because it represented Peter's thinking, and to make it look like Peter wrote it."
MA, No, I don't think so.
But in a nutshell: "To give the letter the authority of Peter."
Or in balder terms: "The author puts Peter's name on it because it represented Peter's thinking, and to make it look like Peter wrote it."
MA, No, I don't think so.
This blog is funnier than the Comedy Channel.
Ain't nuthin funnier than a bunch of people trying to act smarter than they really are.
Ain't nuthin funnier than a bunch of people trying to act smarter than they really are.
# posted by : 9:30 AM
: 9:30 AM
ER,
Pour another cup of tea. This crap's gettin' old. I'm with Trixie on that.
Your lead completely threw me. "My longtime blog pal Mark has asked some questions ..."
Pal? Mark?
Are you kiddin' me? Were you smokin' somethin' other than ceegars this weekend?
Look, I recognize you and Mark have had a long relationship, but I suspect there's got to be a better descriptive word than "pal." Foe, fundamentalist, a lot of other words I won't say here right now.
But pal?
I'm concerned by that as much as I am the fact that you continue to walk into the damn candy store. I'll pray for you, ER. I wonder if "boredom" or lack of a loving wife in the home for the time being is so disturbing that you continue down this track.
I read your blog every day, not just every now and then. I enjoy your blog most every day. But for heaven's sake, man, do the majority of your regulars a favor and move on. Leave Mark and all those other fundies in the dust where they belong and work toward POSITIVE things.
Pour another cup of tea. This crap's gettin' old. I'm with Trixie on that.
Your lead completely threw me. "My longtime blog pal Mark has asked some questions ..."
Pal? Mark?
Are you kiddin' me? Were you smokin' somethin' other than ceegars this weekend?
Look, I recognize you and Mark have had a long relationship, but I suspect there's got to be a better descriptive word than "pal." Foe, fundamentalist, a lot of other words I won't say here right now.
But pal?
I'm concerned by that as much as I am the fact that you continue to walk into the damn candy store. I'll pray for you, ER. I wonder if "boredom" or lack of a loving wife in the home for the time being is so disturbing that you continue down this track.
I read your blog every day, not just every now and then. I enjoy your blog most every day. But for heaven's sake, man, do the majority of your regulars a favor and move on. Leave Mark and all those other fundies in the dust where they belong and work toward POSITIVE things.
Teditor, YOU move on. How anyone -- friend or foe -- thinks it appropriate to come into my cyberhouse and tell me what to hang on the walls is BEYOND me. BACK OFF.
Mark, this isn't an exact comparison, but it's close: Think of it like a pamphlet handed out at a Billy Graham crusade. Billy's picture is on it. His name is on it. His ideas are in there. But he may not have personally written the text. Someone very close to him did, though.
Anon.: Change the channel or stay out of it. I'm not Bill O'Reilly. I'm not going to pretend I care what you think.
Mark, this isn't an exact comparison, but it's close: Think of it like a pamphlet handed out at a Billy Graham crusade. Billy's picture is on it. His name is on it. His ideas are in there. But he may not have personally written the text. Someone very close to him did, though.
Anon.: Change the channel or stay out of it. I'm not Bill O'Reilly. I'm not going to pretend I care what you think.
It's all founded in the greek tradition of letter writing, which was considered an art (a HUGE subject that had a revival in Christian Humanism in the 12th century) - but some small and incomplete details that might move Mark to his own research: writing in another's name was an exercise that greek students had to do in order, for example, to put themselves in another person's mind or place - a discipline we could all learn and gain from even today.
This trained the writer to look at all sides of an issue, and was a written form of one aspect of the great art of Rhetoric.
Also: the letter and all its various formats (many set types that had to be learned: the letter of encouragement, the letter of friendship and many more) were often seen as the bodily replacement of the absent friend, and the lines dividing the two were often blurred - in a very metaphysical way.
The whole subject is fascinating, and opens our often closed modern mind to ways of thinking we're not used to.
Sometimes i think that the Christian Humanists were a lot farther along than us, and understood scripture much better than we do, because they were sought a revival of the greek intellectual disciplines - something we've lost along the way.
We try to squash the epistles and any other text into our little ways of thinking, and forget that there's a rich historical background that's not quite as limiting.
This trained the writer to look at all sides of an issue, and was a written form of one aspect of the great art of Rhetoric.
Also: the letter and all its various formats (many set types that had to be learned: the letter of encouragement, the letter of friendship and many more) were often seen as the bodily replacement of the absent friend, and the lines dividing the two were often blurred - in a very metaphysical way.
The whole subject is fascinating, and opens our often closed modern mind to ways of thinking we're not used to.
Sometimes i think that the Christian Humanists were a lot farther along than us, and understood scripture much better than we do, because they were sought a revival of the greek intellectual disciplines - something we've lost along the way.
We try to squash the epistles and any other text into our little ways of thinking, and forget that there's a rich historical background that's not quite as limiting.
# posted by : 11:11 AM
: 11:11 AM
Absolutely. Christian humanists WERE further along than us. They kind of got slapped back as part of the Counter Reformation. Open minds always bring out reactionaries to defend the status quo.
Oh, there I go actin' all "smart" again!
Here, Anon: "Huh. I'll swan. I don't know nuthin' about nuthin' so I reckon I'll just hush up now and let the world go on around me 'cause I cain't change nuthin' and it don't matter no way no how. Shucks." That better?
Oh, there I go actin' all "smart" again!
Here, Anon: "Huh. I'll swan. I don't know nuthin' about nuthin' so I reckon I'll just hush up now and let the world go on around me 'cause I cain't change nuthin' and it don't matter no way no how. Shucks." That better?
Just one small example of psuedopigraphia in the modern world:
One of the things you do when your in a pack supporting a big dog is write his letters for him. You write them and then he signs them. Sometime he doesn't even sign them, but he delegates that to his number one dog who decides did you say what the big dog would have said and does it sound like he wrote it and then number one dog signs big dogs signature for him. Now big dog takes the credit and blame for all his letters, even though he might never even read them.
Now I haven't yet wrote a letter for a dead big dog, but anything is possible.
Hey, as for them and THEM, I prefer them-all or you's people.
ER, how's Teditors ass taste anyway? I think you need to take down that picture of Holly Hunter's butt you have up on your blog wall.
One of the things you do when your in a pack supporting a big dog is write his letters for him. You write them and then he signs them. Sometime he doesn't even sign them, but he delegates that to his number one dog who decides did you say what the big dog would have said and does it sound like he wrote it and then number one dog signs big dogs signature for him. Now big dog takes the credit and blame for all his letters, even though he might never even read them.
Now I haven't yet wrote a letter for a dead big dog, but anything is possible.
Hey, as for them and THEM, I prefer them-all or you's people.
ER, how's Teditors ass taste anyway? I think you need to take down that picture of Holly Hunter's butt you have up on your blog wall.
Their (CHs) sense of humor was a lot more innovative and playful too: see Thomas More, who raised all his kids, including daughters, to be highly educated and still love a good physical or mental romp (often in the form of raunchy fun).
# posted by : 2:05 PM
: 2:05 PM
Teditor is my friend, in the RW as well as here. I did bite at him. He's the only one who not only complains about specific things I blog about, but actually tells me I need to change the whole dang thing to cater to his personal tastes.
Dang. This ain't a dadgum TV show, and I ain't bloggin' for ratings.
If I knew how, I'd bold "personal" in the following definition of "online journal":
"An online diary is a personal diary or journal that is published on the world wide web on a personal website or a diary hosting website. Online diaries began in 1994. As a community formed, these publications came to be almost exclusively known as online journals. Today they are almost exclusively called blogs, though some differentiate by calling them personal blogs. The running updates of online diarists combined with links inspired the term 'web log' which was eventually contracted to form the word blog.
"In online diaries, people write their day-to-day experiences, social commentary, complaints, poems, prose, illicit thoughts and any content that might be found in a traditional paper diary or journal."
And to answer yer question, DrLobojo, Teditor's ass tasted smartish, with a dash of alecky.
Dang. This ain't a dadgum TV show, and I ain't bloggin' for ratings.
If I knew how, I'd bold "personal" in the following definition of "online journal":
"An online diary is a personal diary or journal that is published on the world wide web on a personal website or a diary hosting website. Online diaries began in 1994. As a community formed, these publications came to be almost exclusively known as online journals. Today they are almost exclusively called blogs, though some differentiate by calling them personal blogs. The running updates of online diarists combined with links inspired the term 'web log' which was eventually contracted to form the word blog.
"In online diaries, people write their day-to-day experiences, social commentary, complaints, poems, prose, illicit thoughts and any content that might be found in a traditional paper diary or journal."
And to answer yer question, DrLobojo, Teditor's ass tasted smartish, with a dash of alecky.
Karen, I admire yer ability to just roll yer britches legs up and step calmly over the obstacles and around the tangents of any given thread! :-)
ER asked: If you mean that even the errors are part of "God's plan"?
Not me brother, but anyone who claims all scripture is inerrent would have to include all that is in the scripture. These variable elements are definately part of the Bible. They pop up right at the front in Genesis Chapter One versus Chapter two. The Elohim story versus the Jeovah story.
ER said: "...then we need another word besides "inerrant."
Nope inerrent is just fine. It is says what the literalist/inerrent want it ti say. It defines that position quite well actually. No need for anyone to fly false colors.
Re GKS and ER: ..."The 800-pound gorilla has left the building, for me." Well and good, but it is just outside waiting for you to come out the door.
Anon chortled: "Ain't nuthin funnier than a bunch of people trying to act smarter than they really are."
To know that you have to exceed the level that they are, which means you must be able to enlighten them/us on the specifics that we/they are acting as though we/them/us know. Please, we await for you to elucidate.
Not me brother, but anyone who claims all scripture is inerrent would have to include all that is in the scripture. These variable elements are definately part of the Bible. They pop up right at the front in Genesis Chapter One versus Chapter two. The Elohim story versus the Jeovah story.
ER said: "...then we need another word besides "inerrant."
Nope inerrent is just fine. It is says what the literalist/inerrent want it ti say. It defines that position quite well actually. No need for anyone to fly false colors.
Re GKS and ER: ..."The 800-pound gorilla has left the building, for me." Well and good, but it is just outside waiting for you to come out the door.
Anon chortled: "Ain't nuthin funnier than a bunch of people trying to act smarter than they really are."
To know that you have to exceed the level that they are, which means you must be able to enlighten them/us on the specifics that we/they are acting as though we/them/us know. Please, we await for you to elucidate.
Mark said: "....I just don't git all them big 4 dolla' words drlobojo uses..."
Dang Mark, I sure as heck wish I could get four dollars each for those words. If I could I would be given them out here or ER's blog for nuthen.
Dang Mark, I sure as heck wish I could get four dollars each for those words. If I could I would be given them out here or ER's blog for nuthen.
ER, a couple things:
First, in reference to Teditor, I do believe that anyone who does this kind of thing runs in to people who wish we would do it different than we do (such as telling us to write shorter posts . . .), so be a bit gentler.
Second, to all those who complain about "big words" - there is one thing I detest more than anything, it is anti-intellectualism. If you don't know what a word means, there is this thing called a dictionary. It's easy to use, and most homes have one. If you still have trouble after consulting a dictionary, you might want to enroll in some classes in your local community college to beef up your vocabulary. I have little patience with people who revel in their own ignorance, wearing it as a badge of honor.
Third, Mark's repeated insistence that he "doesn't get" the whole attribution issue just shows he is either willfully not understanding, or just plain not quite smart. drlobojo and ER have both explained it pretty clearly. He may not like or understand it, but there it is.
Finally, inerrancy has never been an issue for me. I don't really get it - it's kind of like denying the sky is blue and grass is green in summer because someone told you otherwise - and such supine submission is not what "believing" is about. It may be waiting outside the door, but I continue to ignore it.
First, in reference to Teditor, I do believe that anyone who does this kind of thing runs in to people who wish we would do it different than we do (such as telling us to write shorter posts . . .), so be a bit gentler.
Second, to all those who complain about "big words" - there is one thing I detest more than anything, it is anti-intellectualism. If you don't know what a word means, there is this thing called a dictionary. It's easy to use, and most homes have one. If you still have trouble after consulting a dictionary, you might want to enroll in some classes in your local community college to beef up your vocabulary. I have little patience with people who revel in their own ignorance, wearing it as a badge of honor.
Third, Mark's repeated insistence that he "doesn't get" the whole attribution issue just shows he is either willfully not understanding, or just plain not quite smart. drlobojo and ER have both explained it pretty clearly. He may not like or understand it, but there it is.
Finally, inerrancy has never been an issue for me. I don't really get it - it's kind of like denying the sky is blue and grass is green in summer because someone told you otherwise - and such supine submission is not what "believing" is about. It may be waiting outside the door, but I continue to ignore it.
Awwww, people are pretty rough with their friends. 'cause friends can take it. I'm sorry, Teditor, that I took a bite out of yer hide.
Mark has demonstrated pride in his lack of formal education, and disdain for those who do have formal educations, before. That's something *I* just don't "get."
Words: The most I ever made for writin' 'em was a dollar per. Two times. I was in writer's heaven.
Mark has demonstrated pride in his lack of formal education, and disdain for those who do have formal educations, before. That's something *I* just don't "get."
Words: The most I ever made for writin' 'em was a dollar per. Two times. I was in writer's heaven.
Hey, I'm just happy people are discussing these and other issues:
at university I'm about the only one who's read the bible, so everyone considers me to be somewhat of a biblical specialist
(lonely- no discussion) and they get all excited because I know what Erasmus, Abelard and Heloise or Rabelais were talking about (they think I've "discovered" "new" things in Gargantua - lucky for me, not too many Christians study world lit! Look for astonishing presentations and articles in 2009!)
And I am surrounded by kids who after the age of 14 no longer want to discuss anything, a darling husband who can't wait for magazines like "Cowsmopolitan" and "International Holstein" to arrive (and that's all OK), I teach French language and lit to college students who don't even know what a "noun" is in English
AND I live in a country where it's politically incorrect to discuss politics, except in Christian circles - but in order to do that you have to be rigid Pro-Life (only love the woman if you can change her mind), Anti-Gay (you can only love him/her if he/she gets "rehabilitated" or agrees to life-long celibacy) and idolize marriage (cursing divorce), which includes all the ephemeral "family values".
So there you see, I'm starving - who cares about the pieces of grissle interspersed in the meat, or little bits of mould on the cheese?! I enjoy them too.
at university I'm about the only one who's read the bible, so everyone considers me to be somewhat of a biblical specialist
(lonely- no discussion) and they get all excited because I know what Erasmus, Abelard and Heloise or Rabelais were talking about (they think I've "discovered" "new" things in Gargantua - lucky for me, not too many Christians study world lit! Look for astonishing presentations and articles in 2009!)
And I am surrounded by kids who after the age of 14 no longer want to discuss anything, a darling husband who can't wait for magazines like "Cowsmopolitan" and "International Holstein" to arrive (and that's all OK), I teach French language and lit to college students who don't even know what a "noun" is in English
AND I live in a country where it's politically incorrect to discuss politics, except in Christian circles - but in order to do that you have to be rigid Pro-Life (only love the woman if you can change her mind), Anti-Gay (you can only love him/her if he/she gets "rehabilitated" or agrees to life-long celibacy) and idolize marriage (cursing divorce), which includes all the ephemeral "family values".
So there you see, I'm starving - who cares about the pieces of grissle interspersed in the meat, or little bits of mould on the cheese?! I enjoy them too.
# posted by : 6:24 PM
: 6:24 PM
You're right, it's not my cup of tea to watch a friend continue to glory in whomping up on other people using the Bible as a hammer instead of as a beacon.
No matter what one believes about the authorship of the text or the sacredness of the document itself, I can state with a fair amount of confidence that using it to wage battle against others was NOT the intent.
How about a discussion about "loving thy neighbor" and "feeding God's sheep"?
Heck, how about a cute cat and/or dog photo? We're due a break!
No matter what one believes about the authorship of the text or the sacredness of the document itself, I can state with a fair amount of confidence that using it to wage battle against others was NOT the intent.
How about a discussion about "loving thy neighbor" and "feeding God's sheep"?
Heck, how about a cute cat and/or dog photo? We're due a break!
Karen your presence here is refreshing. Hope you continue to hang out in this part of the woods.
But, ah shucks guys is this where we make up and get reasonable again? ER don't let Trixie turn you into a bloging woose. Teditor, remember he said, "Teditor's ass tasted smartish, with a dash of alecky."
Make him pay. Make him pay!
GKS I haven't believe the Bible was inerrent or literal since I was 12 years old and found out that glass was a liquid. But so many do, that it is becoming a political and cultural issue that has an affect on my way of life outside of religion.
ER, so what did you catch this time?
But, ah shucks guys is this where we make up and get reasonable again? ER don't let Trixie turn you into a bloging woose. Teditor, remember he said, "Teditor's ass tasted smartish, with a dash of alecky."
Make him pay. Make him pay!
GKS I haven't believe the Bible was inerrent or literal since I was 12 years old and found out that glass was a liquid. But so many do, that it is becoming a political and cultural issue that has an affect on my way of life outside of religion.
ER, so what did you catch this time?
Trixie: If you can show me where I whomped anybody on this post, I'll drive up there and buy you dinner, or supper! (Teditor doesn't count, 'cause I'da whomped him no matter the topic, for just insisting, again, that I alter programming!)
Drlobo, I think I never believed the Bible literally. It wasn't any of the miracles of Jesus. I think it was stuff like the blitzkreig of Jericho, which just didn't gibe with Jesus, ya know? Even the Flood itself! To kill every livin' critter on earth except for one family -- NOT without sin! See Noah on new wine, butt nekkid in his tent, daughters, etc.
YES, Karen, keep steppin' over and around the tangential cowpies. You do add to the ER miliue ... mel ... mileau -- MIX around here. ;-)
Drlobo, I think I never believed the Bible literally. It wasn't any of the miracles of Jesus. I think it was stuff like the blitzkreig of Jericho, which just didn't gibe with Jesus, ya know? Even the Flood itself! To kill every livin' critter on earth except for one family -- NOT without sin! See Noah on new wine, butt nekkid in his tent, daughters, etc.
YES, Karen, keep steppin' over and around the tangential cowpies. You do add to the ER miliue ... mel ... mileau -- MIX around here. ;-)
Hey, Karen, if yer a lit critter, you and I should collaborate on a paper discussing the idea of "stakeholders" and a blog. Minor epiphany a minute ago: Regulars around here seem to think ER owes 'em something. And maybe he does. Never thought of it that way. It's a whole new communications dynamic I'd never considered.
The irony is that the ones who want me to run some cute pet pix are fellow journalists who, like me, have spent their whole careers writin' stuff they had to for the occasional chance to write somethin' they want to. Looks like they, especially, would understand the need for ER to mount his blog and scream his own personal YAWP to the world, readers be damned. Weird.
The irony is that the ones who want me to run some cute pet pix are fellow journalists who, like me, have spent their whole careers writin' stuff they had to for the occasional chance to write somethin' they want to. Looks like they, especially, would understand the need for ER to mount his blog and scream his own personal YAWP to the world, readers be damned. Weird.
Personal note: Four parts tequila to one part dry vermouth, shaken, in a martini glass, ain't bad. (I'm out of gin.)
well, I am doing a segment in my thesis on writing on the web and pseudonymity (my chosen author is a french doctor who not only writes books, but has what he calls a "webzine", where he freely mixes his literary activity and advice on birth control, abortion and sex changes - (hubby and son are shocked at my depravity - oh well)
So once I come to some really intelligent opinion on blogs, and personal web magazines and anonymity (self-fictionalization),
I'd gladly research reader response theory in relation to blog readers.
So once I come to some really intelligent opinion on blogs, and personal web magazines and anonymity (self-fictionalization),
I'd gladly research reader response theory in relation to blog readers.
# posted by : 8:29 PM
: 8:29 PM
Most of us regulars are just here to make ER think that his blog matters. It is a matter kindness to an old man!
Pshaw. What matters is I have a place to write what I damn well please and have people actually read and interact with me.
Wait. That's what you said.
:-)
Wait. That's what you said.
:-)
YAWP all you want, ER. Like anyone could convince you otherwise. And here's my response:
TO A HISTORIAN.
YOU who celebrate bygones,
Who have explored the outward, the surfaces of the races, the life
that has exhibited itself,
Who have treated of man as the creature of politics, aggregates,
rulers and priests,
I, habitant of the Alleghanies, treating of him as he is in himself
in his own rights,
Pressing the pulse of the life that has seldom exhibited itself, (the
great pride of man in himself,)
Chanter of Personality, outlining what is yet to be,
I project the history of the future.
TO A HISTORIAN.
YOU who celebrate bygones,
Who have explored the outward, the surfaces of the races, the life
that has exhibited itself,
Who have treated of man as the creature of politics, aggregates,
rulers and priests,
I, habitant of the Alleghanies, treating of him as he is in himself
in his own rights,
Pressing the pulse of the life that has seldom exhibited itself, (the
great pride of man in himself,)
Chanter of Personality, outlining what is yet to be,
I project the history of the future.
Hey, I DO look up the big words. What if I find them misspelled in every application? Aw, who cares? I still learned a new word. Nice of Geoff to assume Mark is anti-intellectual. Isn't that a bit judgemental? Would I be assuming to much if the use of big words is done to impress? (BTW, that's what I like to do!)
ER, you just do what you do. It's your cyber-crib. I just wish you'd shampoo the carpet. But as to my earlier comment, why do you disagree with my attempt to clarify our differences? It seems to be the case to me as you seem to have said as much in the past. Just trying to nail it down a bit.
ER, you just do what you do. It's your cyber-crib. I just wish you'd shampoo the carpet. But as to my earlier comment, why do you disagree with my attempt to clarify our differences? It seems to be the case to me as you seem to have said as much in the past. Just trying to nail it down a bit.
Geoffrey, re: your statement, "Third, Mark's repeated insistence that he "doesn't get" the whole attribution issue just shows he is either willfully not understanding, or just plain not quite smart. drlobojo and ER have both explained it pretty clearly. He may not like or understand it, but there it is."
I get it. I got it from the beginning. I am neither willfully misunderstanding or "just plain not quite smart".
Well maybe I am not quite smart. That term is rather relative, is it not? I mean, one can have a 200 IQ and still not know very much, right?
Truthfully, in the beginning I simply wondered out loud, so to speak, why would anyone would even begin to doubt the authorship of 2 Peter in the first place, and what would be the point? That's all. No deeper, more sinister purpose.
Frankly, I don't give a tinkers damn who wrote it, since as ER said, it's still apostolic. It doesn't matter to me. The message is, in fact, in the message itself.
I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture (a few typos and misspellings notwithstanding) for reasons I've gone over in the past. I won't go into them here. To me, it's a simple logical concept, but if people want to complicate things, go for it, I say.
Teditor, I fail to see why you in particular have such aminosity toward me. I've never personally attacked you, indeed, I usually agree with you. And I'm a Chiefs fan, also! I actually like you, TED. I hope you don't choke on that.
As far as me being labeled a pal of ER's, I am flattered. In spite of all the verbal knockdown dragouts ER and I have, I still think he would be a great guy to sit and watch football, and have a beer with. If I drank. I have never considered him an enemy in spite of appearances. There are some things with which some people and I will never agree. And I am reluctantly accepting of that.
Big words. I could use them, too. I know plenty. I just think too many big words make the writing boring. It's why I enjoy ER's writing so. He understands that concept.
ER, I want to thank you for helping to make blogging fun again. This is a hoot!
Now I have another question: Why do I always have to type in the word verification text three times before blogger will accept a comment from me?
I get it. I got it from the beginning. I am neither willfully misunderstanding or "just plain not quite smart".
Well maybe I am not quite smart. That term is rather relative, is it not? I mean, one can have a 200 IQ and still not know very much, right?
Truthfully, in the beginning I simply wondered out loud, so to speak, why would anyone would even begin to doubt the authorship of 2 Peter in the first place, and what would be the point? That's all. No deeper, more sinister purpose.
Frankly, I don't give a tinkers damn who wrote it, since as ER said, it's still apostolic. It doesn't matter to me. The message is, in fact, in the message itself.
I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture (a few typos and misspellings notwithstanding) for reasons I've gone over in the past. I won't go into them here. To me, it's a simple logical concept, but if people want to complicate things, go for it, I say.
Teditor, I fail to see why you in particular have such aminosity toward me. I've never personally attacked you, indeed, I usually agree with you. And I'm a Chiefs fan, also! I actually like you, TED. I hope you don't choke on that.
As far as me being labeled a pal of ER's, I am flattered. In spite of all the verbal knockdown dragouts ER and I have, I still think he would be a great guy to sit and watch football, and have a beer with. If I drank. I have never considered him an enemy in spite of appearances. There are some things with which some people and I will never agree. And I am reluctantly accepting of that.
Big words. I could use them, too. I know plenty. I just think too many big words make the writing boring. It's why I enjoy ER's writing so. He understands that concept.
ER, I want to thank you for helping to make blogging fun again. This is a hoot!
Now I have another question: Why do I always have to type in the word verification text three times before blogger will accept a comment from me?
I have the same problem with the WVT, but if mine doesn't go through the first two times, the third screen changes completely and won't let me send at all - so just imagine all the ones that got away. Maybe that's why it looks like I'm tiptoeing through the textual tulips...
# posted by : 8:43 AM
: 8:43 AM
MA, Mark has stated numerous times that he holds higher education in disdain. We been bloggin' since fall of ought-4 at least, and it's a recurring theme betwixt us.
And, MA, the only difference we have is how we perceive the Bible: I see it as inspired by God but produced by humans, which means it cannot be perfect, for nothign but God in heaven is perfect. Your question about God SPEAKING versus God speaking to US, or whatever, is not the way I think about it.
God is saying the same thing to all of us. Some of us have ears to hear, some of us do not, generally, and on different specifics, and some of us mistake our own thoughts for God's voice, etcs., etc., ad infinitum. But Grace covers all who seek God in good faith, so to speak.
And, MA, the only difference we have is how we perceive the Bible: I see it as inspired by God but produced by humans, which means it cannot be perfect, for nothign but God in heaven is perfect. Your question about God SPEAKING versus God speaking to US, or whatever, is not the way I think about it.
God is saying the same thing to all of us. Some of us have ears to hear, some of us do not, generally, and on different specifics, and some of us mistake our own thoughts for God's voice, etcs., etc., ad infinitum. But Grace covers all who seek God in good faith, so to speak.
And here I thought it was just me that the Word Verification faeries hated. (Hey, don't scoff, even paranoids have real enemies.)
Eventually I've learned to ALWAYs copy my post onto the clipboard before attempting to post, lest the WVF steal my comment to raise as one of their own.
How much do you want to bet it takes 10 tries to get this posted? The WVF hate to be maligned.
Eventually I've learned to ALWAYs copy my post onto the clipboard before attempting to post, lest the WVF steal my comment to raise as one of their own.
How much do you want to bet it takes 10 tries to get this posted? The WVF hate to be maligned.
# posted by : 12:11 PM
: 12:11 PM
They may just tend to be quieter because they realize they have few people they can talk with without going crazy.
Well and even if you've been raised by wolves, a high IQ will make you seek information (Kaspar Hauser perhaps)
# posted by : 5:54 PM
: 5:54 PM
"Mark has stated numerous times that he holds higher education in disdain".
Contrariwise, ER. You have misunderstood me. I hace said many tiomes that I have a great deal of respect for people who have College degrees. My father and my mother both graduated College. 4 of my 5 brothers and sisters hold degrees, two of them have Masters, and all of them graduated with honors. Do you think I disdain my own family?
I have said many times there is a difference between education and intelligence. I have known college graduates that were dumber than a bag of hammers, and I have known high school dropouts that make Many college graduates look like morons. A college degree does not a genius make, as I'm sure you are aware.
I have disdain for College graduates who think because they have a degree or two, or four, that they are superior to all other humans. And you have some regular commenters that fit that description.
I have the gift of discernment. I can spot someone like that a mile away. I can't explain how, I just can. It's sort of like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
Contrariwise, ER. You have misunderstood me. I hace said many tiomes that I have a great deal of respect for people who have College degrees. My father and my mother both graduated College. 4 of my 5 brothers and sisters hold degrees, two of them have Masters, and all of them graduated with honors. Do you think I disdain my own family?
I have said many times there is a difference between education and intelligence. I have known college graduates that were dumber than a bag of hammers, and I have known high school dropouts that make Many college graduates look like morons. A college degree does not a genius make, as I'm sure you are aware.
I have disdain for College graduates who think because they have a degree or two, or four, that they are superior to all other humans. And you have some regular commenters that fit that description.
I have the gift of discernment. I can spot someone like that a mile away. I can't explain how, I just can. It's sort of like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
Well, if I have misunderstood you, it's because in the heat you don't come across that way. You have given me personal grief, although it's been awhile, for wearing my degrees on my sleeve up there at the top of this blog. I think you're spinning yourself. :-)
"I have the gift of discernment." LOL That's an awful hoity-toity way, of saying, "I gotta bullshit detector." !!! Some egghead is rubbin' off on you, clearly.
"I have the gift of discernment." LOL That's an awful hoity-toity way, of saying, "I gotta bullshit detector." !!! Some egghead is rubbin' off on you, clearly.
IQ's and College attainment are of course not the same thing. Ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity.
You can have a high IQ and be ignorant about something, but not often stupid about it. Notice I said "not often".
Mark said: "I mean, one can have a 200 IQ and still not know very much, right?" notice I said "not probable"
Very high IQ people have been very stupid and not know known much about what they were doing. Such is the exception that test the rule. In other words you notice them because they are unusual and stand out. They go against what should be the rule.
But...
I spent three decade helping people get various college degrees in various ways. A full third of those people had no business in college, either because of the specific time in their life, or they just should be doing something else. But we are using a 19th century system to try to prepare people for a 21st century world. We have not yet figured out what the new system should be.
Right now we are running a scam on a lot of people by getting them into college and charging the hell out of them for delivering virtually nothing that they have been promised.
You can have a high IQ and be ignorant about something, but not often stupid about it. Notice I said "not often".
Mark said: "I mean, one can have a 200 IQ and still not know very much, right?" notice I said "not probable"
Very high IQ people have been very stupid and not know known much about what they were doing. Such is the exception that test the rule. In other words you notice them because they are unusual and stand out. They go against what should be the rule.
But...
I spent three decade helping people get various college degrees in various ways. A full third of those people had no business in college, either because of the specific time in their life, or they just should be doing something else. But we are using a 19th century system to try to prepare people for a 21st century world. We have not yet figured out what the new system should be.
Right now we are running a scam on a lot of people by getting them into college and charging the hell out of them for delivering virtually nothing that they have been promised.
But even for those there's value in getting them to stick it out for 4 years: the young employee attitudes here are so bad (and we have so many jobs available) -with kids needing compliments for every little thing they do, and not showing up to work on time, or at all, that a local restaurant chain
is paying 1 1/2 times the normal wage and giving a $100 bonus to any staff that shows up to work on time (!) and doesn't call in sick too often (!)
If four years of working toward a goal can bypass these kids from becoming adults who can't do the basics in the work world, yeah, let's charge them tuition....
I know it's drastic, but if it works for the one third....
is paying 1 1/2 times the normal wage and giving a $100 bonus to any staff that shows up to work on time (!) and doesn't call in sick too often (!)
If four years of working toward a goal can bypass these kids from becoming adults who can't do the basics in the work world, yeah, let's charge them tuition....
I know it's drastic, but if it works for the one third....
# posted by : 11:29 AM
: 11:29 AM
Ok. Call it a BS detector. That works for me, too. But it comes naturally to me. It wasn't acquired by experience. I just seem to have it. On the other hand, in some ways I am unusually naive.
I must be visiting this candy store too often. I actually agree with most of drlobojo's last statement.
I must be visiting this candy store too often. I actually agree with most of drlobojo's last statement.
An early sign of dementia. ... A bachelor's degree doesn't carry the weight it did before, especialy the ones that are really fricking vo-tech certificates.
Learning to learn, learning the basics of philosophy, the sciences, humanities, with the hint of a specialty (some kind of history, or economics, or political science, or something). That should be a bachelor's degree. Not "marketing" or "public relations" or even "journalism," which should have never been promoted from night school.
Learning to learn, learning the basics of philosophy, the sciences, humanities, with the hint of a specialty (some kind of history, or economics, or political science, or something). That should be a bachelor's degree. Not "marketing" or "public relations" or even "journalism," which should have never been promoted from night school.
With lots of the humanities, because thinking starts there (or learning how to think).
There are some science departments now that are seeing that they work so hard on trying to find the facts, but are neglecting to teach the connections to other disciplines -
and I find the humanities lead to an interest in the sciences (oh if only I had more time...I'd study medicine, and theology, and ...).
There are some science departments now that are seeing that they work so hard on trying to find the facts, but are neglecting to teach the connections to other disciplines -
and I find the humanities lead to an interest in the sciences (oh if only I had more time...I'd study medicine, and theology, and ...).
# posted by : 9:23 AM
: 9:23 AM
Did you know that up until the 1950's that a medical degree was equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree?
So was a Pharmacy degree. They were "vocational" "professional" degrees.
Post a Comment
So was a Pharmacy degree. They were "vocational" "professional" degrees.
<< Home
