Because the Bible is really the work of humans, many people who know the truth no longer believe,and feel free. It is a matter of who, or what one wishes to believe!It was humans who decided what was God’s word, or what God inspired, so belief is really in some humans.
Not really, Hollywood and some educational films would have you believe that. But Rome was a stinking city. Yes, they pioneered sewers and aquaducts but there were still a lot of filthy habits and people that did not feel like pioneering cleanliness.
The old Hebrews for example had the Mosaic Law. A law that gives specific orders for disposing human waste, dead bodies, washing hands and clothes, quarantaining the sick, burning certain belongings of deceased or sick persons… the list is very long.
If medieval Europeans simply translated and read their bible, that stupid book from Middle-Eastern fools, they would not have died like rats in their millions from the plague.
Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates and their own great men of science could not save them from their own (filthy) ignorance. Knowing exactly what Pi is did not help them either.
Up to this day any doctor or surgeon can tell you the Mosaic law provides an excellent (basic) tool for preventing diseases (and spreading). Example: In certain areas today in 2013 people still defecate in lakes,streams and rivers while they also bathe in it and drink from it. (Try sipping from the Ganges)
A 1st century Jew would never do that. A 1000 years BC Hebrew would also never do that as their holy book, their law gave them the wisdom to BURY their sh*t.
It took the Europeans centuries and the invention of microscopes and bacteria to figure out washing your hands might actually be a good idea.
God be my witness, up to this day i still see European men walk right out of the toilet after taking a dump without touching water or soap. (you know who you are at the office!)
Love you all, stay clean.
Ruben
PS to Andy the Westie: Psalm 10:4 , 1 Corinthians 3:19 (don’t waste your time here bro)
PPS to Andiethewestie: Look at this statement after i prove the bible said the earth was round about 3000 years ago:
I rest me case laddie. I’m not wasting one more minute here today. It’s no use, save your time bro.
Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the circle of the earth–a flat place with round borders. It does not speak of a globe or sphere.
The ancient people knew that the Earth was a globe, long before the bible was (recently) used to confuse those who were not paying attention.
No one in Europe (Christian or otherwise) thought that the world was flat and that they would fall off if they went too far west. That legend was only created in 1828 (by Washington Irving, no less), to re-write the history of Columbus and no educated person believes that, today.
Because it’s true, they went to the bathouse several times a week. It was also a social meeting place.
The poorer classes indeed would not be able to afford to go as often but they too had public fountains. that’s what the aquaducts are for. No one would be stupid enough to drink from the Tiber.
Glad to hear they picked something up from the Greeks
Total nonsense. Did you think the Jews, in all their cleansiness, were spared?
The Black Death reached Jerusalem by 1348 and wreacked havock just like anywhere else. Soon after it reached Mecca, where people do that little ritual washing as well.
What are you on about?
You too, and please do a bit more scrubbing than mosaic law prescibes.
Roman baths often had no drain. Romans knew it was not wise to go to a both house if you had any scratch or small wound as the water often just sat there without being drained or changed for days.
tomndebb: The word used in Isaiah is not circle but orb or sphere. Keep trying though.
Latro: The Mosaic Law, (dating from the Time of Moses) has nothing to do with Greece. Greece had not even started it’s own Classic period. There were people and tribes but no united Greece state. Just another random shout, but where is your evidence material? Keep trying though.
I’m out of this place for good.
Cite, please.
Is your utter failure to prove your point the reason for your leaving?
More nonsense. Quik Google
No it doesn’t.
There are, of course, dissenting views.
Keep shouting though and be sure to keep your fingers in your ears as well.
Bye bye.
Actually, while khug can mean an arc or sphere in different contexts, the context of that sentence makes it clear that it is a flat circle, (particularly since the notion of a sphere violates the description of Genesis.)
I’m starting to think that maybe it’s us…
Don’t attribute intentions to others; that’s a grievous fallacy. (I might say “You ‘forgot’ to read the Bible,” and that would be the same fallacy.)
The Bible speaks of the Earth having edges, corners, pillars, a foundation, and a firmament overhead. The Bible describes the earth as a tent. The Bible describes the whole world being visible from one tower, and from one mountaintop.
The very most ancient civilizations – Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians – might not have known the earth was a globe. Their mythic imagery, like the Bible’s, seems to indicate that they didn’t know. The Greeks certainly did know. But at what point did the knowledge become common among educated people? I think the Biblical view is of the more ancient kind, before the knowledge spread.
The Greeks, Pythagoras and Aristotle, already postulated a round earth in 6th/5th centuries BC. Maybe the Egyptians also knew, who knows.
When the bible was written, around the same time, they stuck to the mesopotamian idea of a floating disc. When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth, around 200 BC, the bible was already some 300 years old. By then most educated people knew the earth was round.
Augustian in “the City Of God” says," It is impossible for the earth to be round", so some didn’t believe that. The OT also says there was a dome over the earth, I don’t remember the chapter or verse but I think it was in Genesis.
I didn’t mention this earlier. Your distinction here is not valid. A noise event on some data applies if it is in storage the same as sent over a channel. The coding of the data to handle the error rate is needed in each case, it is just they generally have very different error rates.
As far as the substitution, I’m not following how all letters substituting would be the same. A basic concept of compression is Huffman coding, which uses less space for frequently used letters. If you substitute Q’s for E’s, it won’t compress as well. Yes, I’ve done these puzzles, and never said this was good encryption, just an example that doesn’t change information, but does change the result of compression.
Meaning vs. information. I decided to look that up, and found this: Information vs. Meaning | ScienceBlogs
It says: It doesn’t care what the string means. Information theory cares about how much information is in a string; it doesn’t care what the string means. In fact, you can say something much stronger about information theory: if you consider meaning at all, then you’re not doing information theory.
So, I think from this, that CurtC incorrectly used information theory to begin with by talking about the text file.
The above reference goes on to say meaning is the context of interpreting the information, and without context you can’t really measure the amount of information, and continues on about a minimal context. I can now see where you are coming from about more information in a random sample of data. But that information is meaningless!
The compression schema may be information, but 1) it isn’t contained within the data, and 2) it is the same for any input so doesn’t change the amount of information in each case. So, I’ll still assert the amount of information is not just the number of bits.
Did you really mean ability (not inability)? The worth of a file is your ability to not only differentiate it, but decode and use it, right? Like I said above, truly random data is meaningless.
You’re not getting the point. You’re used to thinking in terms of having an original source of data, and trying to transmit/preserve that without error. Any randomness you add is therefore different from the original, so is therefore less of its information. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, and your original question is not addressed by those concepts. Instead, think about having two different sets of original data - which one has more information? Even though they could have the same number of bits, one may have more information, right? What it basically comes down to is how long it would take, ideally, to transmit each file over a data channel - the one that takes longer to transmit has more information in it. And if one of those two data sets is basically the first data set, but with randomness substituted for whatever was there, the second data set will have more information and take longer to transmit.
Great - you’re coming around. Voyager was explaining to you that you were incorrectly looking at “meaning,” and we were talking about information. Your original question was about information, so when you brought “meaning” into it, that just got you confused.
Huh?
Great, I’m glad that’s getting through.
Just when I thought we had you realizing that you need to keep the concept of “meaning” out of the discussion, you bring it back in again! We’re talking about information theory here.
I’m glad you’re “asserting” that, because it’s what we’ve been trying to explain to you.
Nope: inability.
Here’s an example: in English, the letter q is almost always followed by the letter u. You can effectively compress English by replacing “qu” with “q.” (Don’t qote me on this…) The information content of standard English is less than what it might be, because we often use two characters where one would do.
Because we do know (in specific cases) what the next letter will be, the data is readily distinguishable from a random sequence of letters (in which we do not know what the next letter will be.) The actual information content is lessened.
The most informative string of data is one which is (outwardly) indistinguishable from a random string. The string that contains sequences that are highly predictable carries less information than one that contains no predictable strings.
(You can receive no useful information from, say, Jack Chick. You already know exactly what he is going to say! “Haw haw haw!”)
You are assuming that the knowledge the E is most common is built in. If this is not true - and I can’t recall ever seeing a writeup of encoding which assumes it - Q will be seen as most frequent, and the compression will be identical. In fact one of the ways you solve the puzzle is to count letter occurrences, and assume that the most frequent letter can be E depending on its placement in short words. I never thought you were claiming it was good encryption! But the amount of information in the string is independent of the identify of the letters, and thus is the same under this feeble encryption.
The thing you just cited specifically says that information is meaningless.
Think of the answer to a proposal of marriage: yes or no. One bit - not much information, but a wealth of meaning!
,Since God is unknowable,and it is only humans who give their idea of evidence, it is Moot. No one can say in truth they know anything about God, or gods,just what some human decided what was A god or God. One can only believe their own idea or some other’s idea of a god or God.