Ben Zwycky

You're in my prayers, Jag. My wife has also been diagnosed with mild fetal induced diabetes (no such problem was even tested for with the previous two and there are no other problems, so we're not stressing about it) 5 1/2 weeks to go for us (if their guesstimate is anything to go by, which is exactly on my mum's birthday) Hang in there!

Have a great day, SC! Don't go too wild with the celebrations, we need you back here in one piece, you know

This has to be my favourite sentence, though: quote: The "current helmet craze" may indeed have been propagated by government forces, but that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of AFDBs or their non-crazed use by sensible paranoids.

It just gets better. rebuttal to the above article quote: he most important question raised by the Rahimi et al. study is: Should paranoids trust people working for an organization deeply involved in the Military-Industrial Complex? While Rahimi, the lead investigator whose site the paper is hosted on, is from MIT's EE and CS departments, the et al. (Ben Recht, Jason Taylor, and Noah Vawter) are from MIT's notorious Media Lab, which receives funding from DARPA [4] -- one of those government agencies they pretend to be concerned about. When it comes to mind control, they are hardly an unbiased party. That, combined with the aforementioned discrepancies and questionable procedures, makes their conclusions highly suspect.

mmm, centurion... Those photos are just the icing on the cake. Probably the best sacrastic student project I've seen in a long time.

Since The Bible Unearthed seems to be the basis of NomadÔÇÖs opinions of biblical reliability in other threads, IÔÇÖll respond to that. ***WARNING*** this is a very long and complicated post (it took me nearly 6 months to research it all, if you want to skip parts of it, look out for the all caps text in between triple asterisks) In The Bible Unearthed, the vast majority of the points being made are arguments from silence or built on arguments from silence (thereÔÇÖs no evidence!), which in the archaeological field makes a few (significant) assumptions: 1. The passage in question has been understood correctly in the context of the text as a whole (and the terminology used in the passage correctly understood in the context of the prevailing culture that produced it/ surrounded it) and the historically verifiable aspects accurately defined. (No straw men, please ) 2. The event(s) in question actually produces types of evidence which: a. were identifiable as coming from that particular event, and not some similar event at a similar time and place b. were sturdy enough to survive the ravages of history in an at least partially identifiable state (surviving three thousand years is no mean feat, the older the events, the more of a difficulty this becomes) c. were not destroyed or damaged beyond recognition or otherwise lost by subsequent wars, deliberate vandalism, accidental fires, weathering, natural disasters, looting, construction work etc. (If similar events verified by other means have left no archaeological trace (especially if they are more recent, longer in duration or larger in scale) then it is unreasonable to demand that the events in question should have generated such material) 3. The location of the events have been accurately identified and is available for survey (there isnÔÇÖt a major modern residential area on top of it, and no political issues that complicate/prohibit access to the site) 4. The time of the events has been accurately calculated, and the correct sedimentary layers have been properly identified and surveyed. Though in general I donÔÇÖt like the style of the author of this review, in this case I feel he has done a good job of highlighting some of the scholarly problems with The Bible Unearthed. We have several examples of problem 1, e.g. Contrasting the list of defeated kings in Joshua with towns showing no destruction layer in the late bronze age, when the book of Joshua itself lists some of those towns as unconquered, and the book of Judges adds other regions. The conquest itself is not described as a single lightning campaign, but as three separate campaigns with indeterminate gaps between them and actual (partial) occupation only came afterwards (four if you count the conquest of the land east of the Jordan). The battles themselves were resolved very quickly without sieges, but the overall length of the operation is not clear from the text. I could go into a lot more detail on this, but it could get boring and there are a lot more topics to cover. Another example of problem 1 is treating the lack of Amorite invasion or large scale immigration into Palestine in the early 2nd Millenium as proof that Abraham was never in Palestine (the text itself says nothing about Abraham joining a major population movement, a straight reading of the text implies that his ÔÇÿcallÔÇÖ was unusual and applied only to him and his household, the issue of domesticated camels has already been covered in one of my earlier posts) we also have problem 2, for example the native Scythians of the Russian steppe were nomadic dwellers in a desert environment who were well attested in the local literature but left no archaeological trace of their normal life (the Scythians did build monumental royal tombs, but no other traces of them survived, and the Israelites had no monarchy at this time). They are both more recent and more long-term than the exodus, and probably involved larger numbers. See here for more on that issue. Problem 3 mainly affects digging at Jerusalem (but there are also other areas that have large modern residantial areas on top of them), the political and residential situation there significantly complicates archaeological excavations. For example, this discovery last year (a more detailed article on this find by Eilat Mazar (the archaeologist in charge of the dig) can be found here) would seriously undermine FinklesteinÔÇÖs assertion that David and Solomon were merely tribal leaders and left no monuments in Jerusalem, if it were confirmed to be the remains of DavidÔÇÖs palace, and the evidence looks promising, but by no means ironclad (but thereÔÇÖs no such thing as ironclad archaeological evidence, just like thereÔÇÖs no such thing as complete scholarly agreement). If the ashlar stonework and phoenician-style capital did in fact fall from that building and the standard chronology is approximately right, then we have a building of the right size, location, style and date to be DavidÔÇÖs palace with evidence associating the building with a later royal official. What more could you want? But Finklestein says the standard chronology is a century out (at least in Meggido), that the historical fit between Ramesses II and the Exodus is poor and Shoshenq IIÔÇÖs campaign did not have Jerusalem as itÔÇÖs main focus, unlike ShishakÔÇÖs campaign as described in the Bible (in fact the case is worse than that, Jerusalem is not even mentioned at all in Shoshenq IIÔÇÖs campaign list and only 1 of the 15 cities of Judah that Shishak is supposed to have conquered are mentioned in Shoshenq IIÔÇÖs list, though one of the lines of that list has been lost). There is a slight problem here, since Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus and Shoshenq II as Shishak are two of the key foundations of the conventional chronology of Egypt, and as a result, of the chronology of the whole of the Ancient Mediterranean region. There are a considerable number of scholars who disagree with FinklesteinÔÇÖs chronological revision. But what about those who do agree with FinklesteinÔÇÖs dating of the Meggido gate? Do they all agree that this proves the Bible is hopelessly inaccurate? LetÔÇÖs assume Finklestein is right for a moment. If archaeologists could be a century out for Meggido, could this have happened elsewhere? Is this an isolated incident of problem 4 which, when properly adjusted, solves all the historical matching problems of the region, or is it a minor symptom of a much wider problem? According to a growing number of scholars, the problem is much wider than just Meggido, or even the whole of Israel. ***GETTING INTERESTING, BUT STILL INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL *** Look here for some articles outlining the various chronological problems that exist in the standard chronology. **WARNING**- vast amounts of reading material there, and highly technical, but interesting patterns emerge. Basically, between 1200 and 700 BC we have massive hiccups in the archaeological records all over the Mediterranean region, in Nubia (Ethiopia), Israel, Assyria, Troy, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Italy and elsewhere. In all those regions during that period There are 200 to 400- year ÔÇÿdark agesÔÇÖ where there are basically no traces of inhabitation (no artefacts, pottery, monuments or major constructions that can be clearly associated with that time gap). In some locations, these dark ages begin soon after a destruction layer. The standard explanation is that the civilisations broke down, the people dispersed and various artistic skills, if not lost, were transferred to perishable materials (wood carving and textiles instead of ivory or metalwork). At the same time, there are no signs of abandonment or destruction in the majority of the sites, there is no mention of any cultural collapse (or recovery from one) in any historianÔÇÖs records from that period. More interestingly when the ÔÇÿdark ageÔÇÖ is over the culture seems to continue just where it left off centuries earlier, with virtually exactly the same trends in craftsmanship and architecture, with many artefacts, buildings and sedimentation layers being assigned to before the dark age by one scholar and afterwards by another (differences of over 250 years or more!). In many locations, the dates assigned to the destruction layers of some major cities disagree with local traditions or literary sources by several centuries, even some layers that are assigned dates several centuries apart actually touch each other (i.e. no sedimentation occurred between them) In addition, entire disciplines are misaligned with each other, for example scholars studying cypriot pottery are convinced that scholars who found exactly the same pottery in Palestine have dated those layers two centuries or more too early, and those scholars studying in Palestine are convinced that Those in Cyprus have got their dating wrong by over 200 years, with neither side willing to budge. Also, the origin of the Greek alphabet is a mystery, it clearly seems to have been copied from the Phoenician alphabet, but the that form of alphabet fell out of use 300 years before the Greek alphabet began (or at least our earliest copy of it). As a further example, the archaeological date for the destruction of Troy is centuries off the date assigned it by literary and local traditions. So how can this be? How can there be so much disagreement between the different fields and the literature, each other (and themselves)? This all indicates that there is at least one major systematic error somewhere that has gone unchecked. The source of this error becomes more apparent when we notice that the contradictions are primarily between local and imported wares, and between those dates derived from Egyptian chronology and those not. ***MAIN POINTS START HERE, BUT STILL LOTS OF EXPLANATORY MATERIAL*** Inconsistencies within the conventional Egyptian chronology itself - indicate the need to shorten it (the third intermediate period at least) by between 141 and 350 years. This is not done by removing pharaohs from the list but by acknowledging the evidence pointing to there being more coregencies and parallel dynasties than previously thought (there are already multiple coregencies and parallel dynasties in several places in the existing chronological scheme). This ties in very well with the observations from the various regions of the Mediterranean in which the discontinuities are mostly in the order of 200-400 years. The identity of Shishak as Shoshenq II is rejected by this author (and by other scholars). While it is true that out of all the Shoshenqs, Shoshenq II is the only recorded as having campaigned in Palestine, the Egyptian campaign description doesnÔÇÖt match that of Shishak in the Bible very well, and Shoshenq is not the only pharaonic name that matches Shishak. Ramesses was known by the official shortened form Shesha or Shisha, and Biblical authors were very fond of plays on names, referring to people with a word similar to their names that meant something appropriate in Hebrew. Shishak means ÔÇÿone who crushes underfootÔÇÖ, very appropriate for a powerful and dominant pharaoh. Both Ramesses II and Ramesses III campaigned in Palestine, Ramesses II is lists the city of Shalem (an earlier name for Jerusalem) as one of his conquests and one of his victory carvings at Abu Simbel has has him laying seige to a city on a hill that surrenders to him. Supporters of the conventional chronology agree that Ramesses II attacked Jerusalem as part of a campaign to put down a rebellion, they just assign this to a time before this was an Israelite city. The two most popular revised chronologies are one involving a shift of 315 or 350 years (matching Ramesses II with Shishak, the 350-year adjustment seems a more natural fit than the 315-year model), devised by David Rohl (the author of the above article) and his scholarship team, known as the ÔÇÿNew ChronologyÔÇÖ, and one involving a shift of 250 years (matching Ramesses III with Shishak) by Peter James and his team (the authors of most of the 1st group of articles), known as the ÔÇÿCenturies of DarknessÔÇÖ chronology. It is earlier and less well publicised than the ÔÇÿNew ChronologyÔÇÖ, and so less detailed information is available about it on the internet (as far as IÔÇÖve been able to find), itÔÇÖs website doesnÔÇÖt provide many details, so I will be focusing more on the New Chronology. Both of these schemes agree with FinklesteinÔÇÖs association of the Meggido ÔÇÿSolomonicÔÇÖ layers with the Omrides. ***MAIN COURSE ÔÇô STILL BIG *** Exodus and Conquest - Myth or Reality? Can Archaeology Provide the Answer?presents some of the arguments for placing the Conquest of Palestine by the Israelites in the Middle Bronze age, rather than the Late Bronze age in the conventional scheme, which is the only one that Finklestein says in incompatible with the evidence. The 13th Century date is purely based on the Ramesses name match with the store city the Israelites built, (other geographical names associated with Ramesses are used in much earlier stories, indicating that this name use is an update, referring to a location whose name was subsequently changed to Ramesses rather than a secure chronological reference) there are several converging chronological lines in the biblical text which point to an approximate date of 1400 BC). The author asks that the date for the final phase of the middle bronze age be lowered by at least 150 years by disassociating it with the ÔÇÿrevenge invasionÔÇÖ of the Hyksos by the Egyptians, an invasion theory which is not supported by the Egyptian records. The match between Middle Bronze IIB/C and the Conquest narrative is very significant, the sites with destruction layers in this period closely match the sites listed as destroyed in the narrative (apart from Ai, which may not have been correctly identified, as it is a very general name meaning ÔÇÿthe ruinÔÇÖ, used of a large number of sites), the particulars of the description of Jericho are very striking: 1. It had a very large defensive structure around it topped with a large mudbrick wall that collapsed outwards, due to a seismic event (though a proportion stood standing (RahabÔÇÖs house built into the wall was spared in the narrative)), 2. This collapse filled a defensive ditch outside the wall with the debris and enabling easy access to the city (The Israelites rushed into the city after the walls fell in the narrative) 3. the city was defeated without the use of a prolonged seige at or shortly after harvest time. This is very different from Egyptian military strategy, which was to approach and lay seige to a city just before the harvest to reduce that cityÔÇÖs ability to resist a long seige and provide food for their own troops as they waited the enemy out ( In the Conquest narrative the Israelites crossed the Jordan at harvest time and conquered Jericho shortly afterwards) 4. It was burnt to the ground after being captured and was not rebuilt for a long period afterwards 5. It suffered a plague shortly before its destruction, (In the book of Joshua, a plague struck the Israelites shortly before they crossed the Jordan to Capture Jericho.) Also, A pottery inscription form the MBIIB destruction layer at Hazor names itÔÇÖs King as Jabin, which matches the account of Joshua. Both the New Chronology (ÔÇ£NCÔÇØ) and Centuries of Darkness Chronology (ÔÇ£CoDÔÇØ) place 1400 BC near the end of the Middle Bronze age. The author of the above article later stated his preference for the CoD chronology as an overall scheme. Another feature of these revised Chronologies is that the Middle Bronze age sanctuary at Shiloh is no longer a pre-existing cultic site that was re-used by the Israelites, it was established by the Israelites immediately after the conquest (in the Bible to house the Ark of the Covenant) Also the strata at Shechem then fit well with the altar built by Jacob in the 18th Century BC, the pillar set up in front of the MB fortress-temple as the covenant stone set up by Joshua, and the destruction of the temple by Abimelech in the Judges period OK, what about David and Solomon? The El Armana Habiru and the Israelite Monarchy (comparison of the use of the word Habiru/Apiru in the El Armana Letters and the use of the word ÔÇÿibrimÔÇÖ (Hebrew) in the book of Samuel). In later books of the bible, the word ÔÇÿHebrewÔÇÖ takes on other meanings, but in the book of Samuel, the meaning match is very close. It gets better. The following article, The El Armana letters and Israelite history Shows a massive number of historical parallels between the events and political situation described in the book of Samuel and the events and political situation described in the El Armana letters (They list 27 general and specific parallels), plus the names of major figures in the Samuel narrative are either translations or shortened forms of translations of individuals mentioned in the El Armana letters. These mostly concern the activities of Saul, his battles, family situation, humble origins and resulting linguistic limitations, the precise circumstances of his death and his successors, but the Fall of Jerusalem to DavidÔÇÖs Hebrews and the fortress of Zion as his subsequent centre of operations also fit very well. The name match with David has been revised slightly since this article, it should be read Tadua and canÔÇÖt be read as Dadua, but the meaning is exactly the same- in Hurrian it means the beloved, which is what dwd (David) means in Hebrew. The strength of the matches is not through the name compatibilities (though they should be there if they are the same individuals, and teh names are very compatible), the historical parallels are where the evidence is really strong. This fits in well with NC, IÔÇÖm not sure how it fits in with CoD, because of the limited information about it online (IÔÇÖd have to buy the book). ***IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THE FOLLOWING SECTION*** A summary of the ÔÇÿNew ChronologyÔÇÖ and its implications for Biblical History We have David and Solomon at the end of the Late Bronze age instead of the Early Iron Age, where the cities of Israel show signs of great wealth (gold, jems and imported ivory, plus the remains of the house he built for PharoahÔÇÖs daughter above Jerusalem, the Millo ÔÇÿstepped stone structureÔÇÖ and the architectural and sculptural links between Israel and Phoenicia are very strong (thereÔÇÖs even an inscription closely resembling Solomon seated on his throne, with winged sphinxes as armrests on his throne (lions in the Bible).) The revised time of the Exodus and Conquest (in both schemes) then ties in nicely with the sudden abandonment of the city of Avaris (in the same location as the later city of Pi-Ramesses) after a severe sudden disaster of some kind (mass burial pits that are usually associated with a plague (the tenth plague?), followed by reoccupation by a different type of population. The first population were Egyptianised Caananites, who introduced the long-haired sheep to the region (The proto-Israelites were shepherds) and suffered an appallingly high infant mortality rate (65% of the burials were of infants, as opposed to the expected ratio of 20%) and significantly higher adult female than male burials (the culling of Israelite infant males, perhaps?). Some of them reached a high status within Egyptian society, and they also showed signs of malnutrition, which could be the result of a famine. Most of the females from this population originated from Syria (the pre-Egyptian patriarchal males were described as travelling to Haran in Syria to find wives, whether this trend continued in Egypt is not mentioned, but thereÔÇÖs no reason to assume that it didnÔÇÖt in the narrative as it is in the Bible) This all fits in very well with the description of the Israelites in Egypt. The new population were non-Egyptianised Caananites rebuilt the city in a completely different style, and fit the profile of the Hyksos invaders (who were the Amalekites according to Arab tradition, who the Israelites met on their way out of Egypt in the Exodus narrative). ManethoÔÇÖs description of this invasion (as quoted by Josephus) in the reign of Tutimaos (Dudimose) ÔÇ£Tutimaos. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and then having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others...ÔÇØ The ÔÇÿblast of God smote usÔÇÖ and ÔÇÿfrom the regions of the east, invaders of obscure race...ÔÇÖ are seperated with a particular Greek punctuation mark that marks them as separate events. How could ruthless and cruel oppressors gain control of the most powerful of nations without a fight? That the Egyptian economy had been destroyed by a series of disasters and itÔÇÖs military forces wiped out in a single catastrophic event? Going further back, using astronomical retrocalculation to verify the dates of earlier Pharaohs and the chronological information given in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament dated to the third century BC, the oldest copy of the Old Testament available to us) and in the writings of Flavius Josephus, we find a very good match for Joseph as vizier to Amenemhat III in the 12th Dynasty, under whose rule there are: 1. Records of the level of the Nile inundation that correspond to several years of high Nile floods, depositing extra silt making more land arable that growing season (the ÔÇÿyears of plentyÔÇÖ), immediately followed by extremely high floods, causing villages to be washed away and the fields to not drain away in time for planting, resulting in severe famine. 2. At the same time, the local governors stopped building elaborate tombs for themselves and authority was centralised. 3. At the same time, Amenemhat III built a massive structure at Hawara known as the ÔÇÿEgyptian labyrinthÔÇÖ, consisting of three thousand chambers (1500 above ground and 1500 below ground, arranged around twelve massive roofed courts, all inside the same wall), interconnected by a maze of passages described by Herodotus as a wonder that ÔÇÿsurpasses even the pyramidsÔÇÖ 4. At the same location under the same PharaohÔÇÖs rule (who was also co-regent with Amenemhat IV, a massive canal and mechanism was built to divert excess Nile floodwater into Lake Moeris as needed. This canalÔÇÖs name is Bahr Yuseff (Waterway of Joseph) 5. The modern name Hawara is the ÔÇÿAvaris of the southÔÇÖ, where the ÔÇÿAvaris of the NorthÔÇÖ has already been discussed above as the location where the proto-Israelites lived. The name ÔÇÿAvarisÔÇÖ means ÔÇÿHead of the DepartmentÔÇÖ or administrative centre for the region, EgyptÔÇÖs administrative structure was reorganised into three Departments at this time, Northern Waret, Southern Waret and Head of the South Waret 6. The administrative changes included the creation of a ÔÇÿDepartment of the PeopleÔÇÖs giving, and a ÔÇÿDepartment of the treasuryÔÇÖ (In the Bible, all the people of Egypt ran out of grain and ended up selling their, livestock, land and selves into slavery to the Pharaoh because the Pharaoh was the only one who had prepared for the time of famine by collecting and storing a proportion of the harvest during the times of plenty, because he had been forewarned of the pending disaster by Joseph, who was placed in administrative control of this program.) In the Bible, we are also told that Joseph lived among his own people from the time they arrived until his death, that he asked for his body to be taken and reburied in Palestine with his ancestors when the Israelites finally left Egypt, which was done at the Exodus. Going back to Avaris, there is a substantial governorÔÇÖs palace in the earliest layers of the ÔÇÿproto-IsraeliteÔÇÖ settlement, and in itÔÇÖs garden is a miniature pyramid tomb incorporating an attached mortuary chapel containing the twice-life size cult statue of an Asiatic official, which had been heavily vandalised. No other individual (other than a Pharaoh), had ever been given the honour of having a giant statue of them built for their tomb. This is even more extraordinary for a foreigner, and this was the only mortuary chapel in the city). What remained of the statue enabled itÔÇÖs identification as a very high-ranking official of foreign extraction, dressed in a garment with a multi-coloured design (a coat of many colours), similar in style to those on a mural from a tomb from a generation earlier than JosephÔÇÖs calculated arrival time in Egypt, depicting the arrival of a group of Asiatics into Egypt under the leadership of Abishai (just like the Midianites described as taking Joseph into Egypt). The revision to the chronology of Egypt received fierce criticism from those in the academic establishment, who have built their reputations on the standard chronology. Some objections are based on minor details that do not affect the overall scheme, Most, if not all of the major objections have been responded to by the authors of the revised chronologies. here are some responses to criticisms levelled at the new chronology. Further responses can be found here, here and another here see the Centuries of Darkness responses to critics page for their responses to criticisms of their model. An interesting quote from their frequently asked questions section that specifically mentions Finklestein and the Bible Unearthed. By redating only one time period (exactly as the authors of CoD proposed) and leaving the rest alone (without considering the scheme as a whole), the layer(s) immediately preceeding the change is(are) massively stretched, an extra ÔÇÿdark ageÔÇÖ is created and the Bible appears to be inaccurate. If you accept the redating scheme as a whole instead of just one little piece of it in isolation, then the Bible fits the evidence very well. Additionally, in the Acknowledgements section of A Test of Time (the book with a fuller description of the New Chronology), David Rohl mentions that he discussed his chronology and itÔÇÖs implications for Israelite Archaeology in detail with Israel Finklestein, yet Finklestein makes no mention of either the CoD or NC models, or of the possibility of placing the Exodus and Conquest in the Middle Bronze Age (which is proposed by many scholars, even those who do not accept either of the revised chronologies. In 2002, an American Egyptologist carried out a survey of other Egyptologists, asking in which period of Egyptian history, if any, would they place the Exodus. The majority responded that they would place it in the Middle Bronze Age). Perhaps because there would then be too much evidence to explain away? The debate as to which scheme is the correct one is by no means over (no scholarly debate ever really ends), this discussion group does not just discuss RohlÔÇÖs scheme, but many other possible schemes, including the conventional chronology and minor adjustments to it (you have to join the group to read the posts and access the files, thereÔÇÖs a whole extra library of scholarly material in there, most of it goes over my head). The question isnÔÇÖt really, ÔÇ£Is there any way of correlating some of the events in the Bible with Archaeology?ÔÇØ, itÔÇÖs more a question of which of the schemes, within which the biblical narrative fits very well as a whole, is the closest to reality? There are many other topics that could be discussed and I havenÔÇÖt even mentioned all the points made in these articles I linked to - this is a colossal subject. Is this post enough to justify my position that the Old Testament is historically reliable, or do I have to give you the long version?

Maybe the PhysX chip isn't quite dead yet- their card can fit into a regular PCI slot and it's already supported by a few engines, including the reality engine. If the price is right (mid to low-end GPU range) and performance is as good as a high-end GPU doing the same job, it could be a good buy for those with non-PCIe or non-SLI motherboards. besides, I really like the airtight tech demo For me, this will only become an issue in 2010 , and I'm sure the situation will be very different.

How long before we hear a similar announcement from ATI?

Calm down. You can host your own server, if you have a decent upload speed, with or without a password. You can't hire a server for BCMG from anyone, mp has moved over to UC and UC:AWA on the whole because of the massive improvements in the mp engine since BCMG. If I still had a working copy of BCMG (which I don't, because my install CD has deteriorated), I'd host a server for you for a couple of hours, despite the fact my connection isn't that fast (only 200/200). If you had UC or UC:AWA, then I'd be able to do it for you no problem (we're in almost the same time zone). I can ask around to see if anyone I know is able to host a server for you (though I'm not sure there's much chance of that), I don't know who it is that has been running the servers you saw. Later,

that's classic

Glad to hear you made it, gray! You look after that boy, ya hear?

I hope this day brings a whole lot of extra blessings and pleasures. Have a good one, $ilk!

Don't give up the ghost yet....

OK, I'm off in about an hour and a half's time. Zane is in charge of general fleet admin and rp (including maintaining our EP records) and Marc and Jack in charge of fleet MP. Later, guys.

Those of you who have AWA and are cleared level 3 or above, check out the latest thread in our level 3 forums, a little going away present from me to you all

Just in time for the big handover. For the next month or so (until I get back onnthe 21st of February), you and Jack are in charge of training sessions, and until then I'm also making you captain of Team Praetorian, with Jack as vice-leader. Do me proud.

Saturday has come, it's just before 7pm GMT, but I don't see anyone I'll be on one of the MP servers or on teamspeak

I changed the team name to 'Tsunami Battle Group', to tie in with the fleet charter and replaced the Sark Battle Group with the Tsunami Battle Group as a wing name in the fleet database. Those are what to apply to join, if you want to be involved in fleet MP after you have registered an account for yourself at http://www.bcfleets.net *Sorry for the confusion, edit time expired*

I created an MP team for Orion with the name 'Vigilance Battle Group', to tie in with the wing names listed in the fleet database. That is the one to apply to join after you have registered an account for yourself.

Not if you have some strong data to back up those strong statements. I was in fact only responding to the topic of the thread as described in its title. The 'poor scholarship' remark was directed towards the methodology used to obtain 'The sun is evil' conclusion in Voli0's opening post. The sun/stars/physical objects were not condemned as 'evil' in of themselves, but the act of worshipping them was, since they were inappropriate objects of worship. Does that make sense? While topics like parallels/anti-parallels between Egyptian and Jewish beliefs, Jewish attitudes towards Egyptian culture, religious borrowing between the various pagan religions in the ancient near East, the direction of development/degradation/enforcement between polytheism and monotheism, the modern relevance/truth claims of Islam, Judaism and Christianity and their ancient texts, the honesty/dangers/benefits of mixing politics and religion, the Zohar versus the Torah/Talmud/rabbinic traditions, and the origins of the nation of Israel are all very interesting no doubt, somehow I don't think they are all necessary when discussing the meaning of the word 'Lucifer' in the Bible and Christianity. Or am I oversimplifying the issue?

Lucifer is a latin translation of the original Hebrew phrase which meant morning star, so there's no great controversy there, and so it can't mean the sun in this context. It only appears once in this form in the entire Old Testament, furthermore in a poetic context describing the glory of the King of Babylon, so drawing detailed theological meanings from here is not exactly secure territory. The title 'morning star' is used figuratively three times in the new testament, once very clearly as a title of Jesus (Revelation 22:16), so someone being called lucifer would not really be a problem, and besides, having an inappropriate name is not really a barrier to service in the church. (Sorry, no Damians allowed, get out!) The Morning star as Venus is the brightest star apart from the sun in the sky, and was used figuratively of someone to mean that their glory was very great (or unmatched), certainly true of the King of Babylon at the time. As for Venus representing the woman, where do you get that from, apart from Roman pagan mythology? Doesn't that whole 'the sun is evil' conclusion seem a teensy bit tenuous, given that the sun, moon and stars are never described as having divine power (or even of being alive, except in figurative poetic contexts) in the bible, merely as the main light giver of the daytime sky, and as markers of the seasons and days: e.g. Genesis 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day. It is poor scholarly practise to focus on one unclear figurative passage or phrase and build up a huge theory that is contradicted by clear passages. It is better to examine the clear passages for patterns and then see if the unclear ones can be made sense of in that context. Fair?

Captain Jack, check out this thread and see if that works for you.

That's a fine looking young boy you have there, Cruise

Yep, this Saturday (the 21st) from 7pm GMT? I'll also be around this evening from 7-8.30pm GMT, if that suits anyone.

very nice, more booming, no sound corruption, A lot more sounds can be comfortably played at once (my system never could cope with having all sounds on, I only ever had 'at my craft' selected before this patch.) in general a big