text:
Jiskha Homework Help
What are the pros and cons of capitalism?
Please post your answer, and we'll be glad to critique it.
👁
Respond to this Question
What are the pros and cons or arguments for and against the just desert punishment theory?
Algebra Question
Quadratic equations can be solved by graphing, using the quadrat completing the square, and factoring. What are the pros and cons these methods? When might each method be most appropriate?
Algebra Quadratic Equations
What are the pros and cons of completing the square as a way to solve quadradic equations?
Systems of equations can be solved by graphing or by using substitution or elimination. What are the pros and cons of each method? Which method do you like best? Why? What circumstances would cause you to use a different method?
WHAT ARE the pros and cons of the following statement: "Egalitarian companies are more innovative."
I understand that systems of equations can be solved by graphing or by using substitution or elimination. But I cannot think of any pros or cons so... What are pros and cons of each method?
"Systems of equations can be solved by graphing or by using substitution or elimination. What are the pros and cons of each method? Which method do you like the best? Why? What circumstances would cause you to use a different
what are the pros and cons of being a microbiologist?
socila studies
the pros and cons of oil issues
What were the pros and cons of the U.S. gaining Texas?
compare and contrast the pros and cons of agriculture
cam yall name me 12 pros n cons fo social studies
You can view more similar questions or ask a new question.
© 2021 Jiskha Homework Help


THAT WITH OUR POP AND ROCK HITS, AND WE'LL ROCK YOU SILLY! YOU WILL NOT BE SORRY IF YOU BOOK BANK OF HARMONY THIS HALLOWEEN SEASON!!!
Let's ring in this holiday season like never before! Bank of Harmony is ready to wow you and your guests with an array of holiday music to fit any event. Along with the occasional tune from our standard songbook, we will keep everyone in the holiday spirit and fully engaged as we spread goodwill and cheer to one and all!


text:
Shape of My Heart je pjesma engleskog glazbenika Stinga koja se nalazi na desetom mjestu njegovog četvrtog studijskog albuma Ten Summoner's Tales. Šansonu je napisao gitarist Dominic Miller a objavljena je u ožujku 1993.

Stingova pjesma je korištena u odjavnom creditsu Bessonovog trilera Léon iz 1994.

Na temelju Stingovog singla mnogi glazbenici su stvorili vlastite, nešto promijenjene verzije:

Izvori

Singlovi iz 1993.
Britanske skladbe

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


INFOCAMPUS is a center of excellence for Technology Services, Software Training With Placement in PHP MYSQL Course Training, Codeigniter Course Training, Drupal Course Training,Manual Testing course Training, Software Testing Selenium ,course Training,SQL/PLSQL course Training, course Training,Java/j2ee course Training, Dot net course Training In Banagalore Marathahalli.
Infocampus is excellent training institute,i experienced more practical knowledge which helped me to prove myself in the corporate world.This is the best place to learn the technology.
i would like to say thanks to Priyanka mam of placement cell infocampus, now im working in very good company with very good package and must thank to Siyaram sir ur excellent training and fixing my bugs which i'm facing in company after my training, Thank you very much sir, feels 5 stars are not enough.
I did. Ui developer and PHP course. Best institutions for web design and web development.
..sir ram sir best sir.. Yogini mam also. And placement sir lokesh is good guy. He will give you definitely one job.. Just give your best in interview.
i got placed from this institute, they are providing quality teaching with backup class..
All teams of infocampus are very cooperative.They provide interview calls until u get placed.
Highly recommended! I joined in April 2017 and after completion of course (four months), Infocampus started sending me for attending interviews. Finally i got selected in KeyStrides Labs Pvt. Ltd. I want to thanks Siyaram Sir for continuous guidance and support. I also want to thanks Lokesh Sir (Placement Cell) for placement assistance.


HELLO BIRDIE MAKES TOP 5! PLEASE VOTE TO HELP US WIN!!!
It's an honor to announce that we have made top 5 for City Beat's Best of San Diego 2016!!! With your help we can win this!!! If you are in love with our quality of services and your your adore your favorite birdie babe nail artists, please take a moment to vote for Hello Birdie in the category for best nail salon! Click on the image above to vote now!!! While your at it don't forget to support The Lab A Salon too! We truly appreciate all of your love and support! We love what we do at Hello Birdie and hope that it shows every time you come in.


What can account for these two radically different opinions? Well, Gardner is a Mormon and Jenkins is not. That certainly has something to do with it. But I think there is more to it than that. Gardner has recently finished a nearly 500 page study on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Previous to this, Gardner has published an award-winning study on the translation of the Book of Mormon, and a meticulous 6-volume commentary on several aspects of the text. Gardner's contributions to the study of the Book of Mormon have been monumental, and this latest book is no exception. There is a reason I consider him one of the top 5 Book of Mormon scholars of all time. Jenkins, meanwhile, has contributed nothing meaningful to our understanding of the Book of Mormon. He has not even contributed a meaningful argument against it. I'll let the reader decide which of our two experts is doing "what scholars do" on the Book of Mormon.
Yet the thrust of many of Jenkins dismissive comments is that the "apologists writing about the Book of Mormon know as little about authentic historical or archaeological methodology as I do about bees, but that does not prevent them from making statements about history and archaeology." There is certainly truth to this on message boards and comments sections across the Internet, but the Book of Mormon is not its only victim. The Internet is an equal-opportunity stage for crack-pottery of every kind, and on all sorts of otherwise legitimate fields of study. Jenkins surely knows that what scholars do is find the best and strongest argument made for something and engage with that—not what every idiot on the Internet has to say.
And Gardner's latest book, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History, represents the latest, strongest, and most comprehensive case yet put forth for reading the Book of Mormon as history. I have personally offered to send Jenkins a free copy of it, as soon as it is available, on the condition that he will read it and review it. Contra Jenkins assertions about "apologists writing about the Book of Mormon," Gardner is strong on methodological grounds, which is precisely why I think it would be helpful for Jenkins to read it. He has, so far, turned down my offer. Fortunately, however, Greg Kofford Books has made Gardner's chapter methodology available as a preview of the book, so now Jenkins and anyone else can read and judge for themselves if Gardner (and Mormon "apologists" in general) is clueless "about authentic historical or archaeological methodology" as Jenkins would have us believe.
In reaction to this, Frendo didn't just start his study with a discussion of methodology—he made his study all about methodology. Frendo's experience alerts us to the fact that even among professionals, there is a need to sort out methodological matters. This couldn't be more apparent in the Hamblin/Jenkins debate.
1- We must correctly interpret the Book of Mormon.
2- We must correctly understand and interpret Mesoamerican evidence.
3- We must correctly understand and interpret ancient Near Eastern evidence.
4- We must attempt to understand the possible relationships between scholarly interpretations of the Book of Mormon and the Mesoamerican and ancient Near Eastern data.
Alas, Jenkins would have us believe that to acknowledge the fact that interpretation is a necessary and inherent step to getting to the evidence—and that it is a non-objective process—necessarily means you must go down the post-modern rabbit hole. Yet this is not the case.
In his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans, 2001), William Dever—certainly no lover of post-modernism, as a reading of the first two chapters will quickly reveal—discusses methodology at length. Part of that discussion includes exploring what "facts" and "data" are. Dever notes that while "facts are theoretically provable … In practice … facts are merely inferences that each person draws, based not only on observations, but also on our own social conditioning and the intent of our investigation." Hence, "Facts do not speak directly. They may in principle have a concrete existence of their own; but they come to life, empowered to speak to me of the past only as I am able to incorporate them into my consciousness." Of facts in archaeology, Dever says "they are relatively few and generally of minimal significance in themselves. Even these facts, however, must be carefully established as such before becoming admissible evidence" (p. 70, emphasis mine).
Dever goes on to argue, "Ordinarily the terms 'fact' and 'data' are used interchangeably, but I contend that they represent two successive stages of the interpretive process" (emphasis mine). Thus, "facts become data—that is, useful information—only as interpreted within an intellectual framework that is capable of giving them significance" (p. 72, emphasis in original). Ultimately, Dever argues that "texts and artifacts are both data to be 'read' [i.e., interpreted] and both may constitute sources for writing history," and as such, "they must be interpreted separately and similarly, and then compared" (p. 78–79). Compare this to the four steps of interpretation Hamblin insists on for the present discussion (cited above).
So he expects Middle-Eastern looking material culture in the New World. But why? This kind of expectation can only be based on how Jenkins reads the text—and it is a rather weak reading. Jenkins is not offering any interpretation based on a close encounter with the text (or with New World archaeology, for that matter), but rather is interpreting from a distance. From impressions based on the general storyline of the text. But close reading suggest that the small number of migrants in 1 Nephi would be unlikely to leave a clear trace, and that by the time populations have expanded in the Book of Mormon, their material culture was probably closer to their Mesoamerican neighbors than their Middle Eastern ancestors.
The role interpretation plays in all of this is readily apparent when one looks at what happens when someone tries to offer a piece of evidence that might satisfy Jenkins's "rule of one." First, with Nahom/NHM from commenters, and then when Hamblin put forward Akish/Ukix. Jenkins dismisses both, of course, and thus ends right where he started: there is no evidence whatsoever. But what makes it evidence or not evidence is the interpretation. How one interprets the text, how one interprets the data on Nihm, and how one interprets and contextualizes the altars with the inscription are all part of the process. Unfortunately, Jenkins makes numerous interpretive (and even factual) errors of both text and artifact when dealing with Nahom/NHM, but in any case the process allows him to conclude "not evidence." I think Latter-day Saint literature discussing this is on much stronger interpretive and methodological ground, but I'll let readers pursue it and decide for themselves.
Likewise, how Hamblin interprets the Book of Mormon text related to Akish (ah-kish), and how he interprets the inscription traditionally read as Ukix (oo-kish) is part of why he sees evidence for the Book of Mormon here. Jenkins predictably responds that this is "not evidence," and it is again by process of interpretation that he gets there. I personally think Jenkins does a better job this time than he does with Nahom, but won't go into that here. The point is interpretation is happening here, and pretending that it is not, but that you are simply discussing "objective evidence" (or the lack thereof) is not helpful to the discussion.
None of this should be taken to suggest that we cannot know things about the past—as I said, we do not have to go down the po-mo rabbit hole here. Rather, it is to recognize what is being debated here; which is more interpretation of evidence rather than evidence itself. When we recognize the role that interpretation plays in the process, and are clear about the interpretations we are making, how we are making them, why, etc., then we can have a productive discussion. We may still fail to reach agreement (as happens sometimes between scholars), but the engagement can begin to shed more light and less heat.
Of course, none of this is meant to avoid providing evidence from both archaeology and anthropology. The point is, as I argued already in an earlier post, that the kind of evidence we expect needs to be based on a solid understanding (which requires interpretation!) of the text and the relevant archaeological data—and on close reading (i.e., interpreting) of both. If you want to see what that looks like with the Book of Mormon, you'll have more luck reading Brant Gardner than Philip Jenkins. The reason is, (and what this discussion should make clear by now) is that single pieces of evidence—like those called for by Jenkins's "rule of one"—will always fail to be persuasive, regardless of whether we are dealing with the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or whatever. This is so precisely because interpretation will always allow for individual facts to rendered "not evidence." As Gardner puts in his forthcoming book, "The Book of Mormon will require sterner stuff" (p. 50). He goes on, "We will require a large number of convergences, and even then, we will require more than simple convergences. What the Book of Mormon will require is a number of complex correspondences that are interrelated between text, time, and place" (p. 50). Gardner has upped the ante. He is promising something much more significant than "any single credible fact." I suggest readers get his book and decide from themselves if he delivers.
This is another in a series of great posts. Thanks for sharing.
I've particularly liked Gardner's writing because in addition to providing great insights into the texts he discusses his methodology. I remember him doing so even in Fair presentations to general audiences almost ten years ago. This might be based on my particular weaknesses. I think I'm fairly strong when it comes to discussing military theory, but when I move beyond that, much of my training has been done on the job as I research and write about military history and its intersection with the Book of Mormon. Thus I enjoy it a great deal when I can read solid scholarship that also describes their methodology in practical terms.
It seemed kind of futile to me but I appreciate how you and Hamblin are taking the time to provide substantive responses.
The debate you are having with Wolfenstasi is quite interesting. I was reading some Hans Delbruck today and came across some interesting information. Part of his contribution to the field was reassessing numbers in ancient texts. For example, he pointed out using logistical principles, that the train of the Persian's million man army would be so big that the last man wouldn't have left Persia before the vanguard arrived at Marathon and fought the battle!! This was pretty cool to read because I used the same reasoning to reassess numbers in the BoM, and even the same historical example!!
So besides having to add a footnote, I'm astounded at this debate over fake Mormon scholars using absurd methodology. As I said, this is not my natural area of strength. But I read about the techniques employed by credible mainstream scholars and find that my methods are very good. In this case, I'm doing so well that I independently discovered and used a methodology developed by one of the legends in the field of military history, and I even used one of his most vivid examples. Needless to say I think those like Gardner are doing just fine, and sincerely interested parties can see for themselves.
Reminds me of the book that came out recently where the author insisted that no 1st century authors mentioned Jesus and therefore he concluded that Jesus was not a real person. Except he ignored the several authors whose works now appear in the New Testament, and Josephus. At that point his methodology, or lack thereof, completely overwhelmed his argument. With a bad methodology any evidence, even concrete evidence can be dismissed.
1. If something hasn't been accepted by the broader scholarly community, it can be dismissed without hesitation.
2. In the case that something has been largely dismissed by the general scholarly community, the only thing that could possibly merit further investigation is at least one piece of incontrovertible evidence that substantiates its claim.
Obviously, each of these premises is largely fallacious. The first relies on an "appeal to authority". The second simply avoids the variety of valid types of evidence--sort of a "false dilemma" combined with a "hasty conclusion."
It is true that at some point, all of us must rely on authority figures to help shape our view of reality. We are all ignorant about many things, and therefore we are generally consigned to trust experts in their various fields. However, there are certainly qualifications that must be made in this regard.
It should first be recognized that the professional consensus in virtually every field of knowledge has been wrong on numerous occasions, even concerning the most foundational of assumptions. Secondly, many issues are simply outside the scope of a discipline of knowledge. For instance, Hamblin adequately demonstrated that non-LDS Mesoamerican scholars are generally not equipped to evaluate the Book of Mormon because they haven't read it and aren't familiar with the scholarly research which supports it. Thirdly, many disciplines are, by their very nature, less reliable than others. For instance, paleontology is in a totally different realm than, say, marine biology. The biologist gets to directly observe animals in their natural habitat. The paleontologist must heavily rely on inference and theoretical extrapolations to answer questions that are essentially self evident to the marine biologist. It isn't that paleontology is less rigorous than marine biology, but simply that its inherent limitations make it less reliable. Mesoamerican archeology is one of those disciplines that is heavily constrained by limited data, and therefore even a consensus among its scholars is inherently less reliable on many issues. Therefore, Jenkins' appeal to authority on this issue is essentially fallacious.
I find Jenkins' demand for a singular piece of convincing evidence to be somewhat startling. He postures that he is a "big boy" and can handle the issues without the discussion devolving into issues of methodology or epistemology. It seems like what he is really saying is: "I won't let you question the assumptions upon which my question is based. Just answer my question!"
I think that Neal has demonstrated quite ably that Jenkins' approach in this regard is misguided. Numerous pieces of converging circumstantial evidences can sometimes be stronger than a single piece of more direct evidence. And honestly, Jenkins provides a list of types of evidence that he feels would suffice, but he doesn't provide any criteria that would satisfy him for a given type. Hamblin got into this quite thoroughly in his explanation of inscriptional data. So far, Jenkins has pretty much ignored the substance of these arguments. Somewhat frustrating, but certainly predictable.
What it all really comes down to is that Jenkins refuses to seriously engage the debate about why his assumptions and methodology are invalid. From my perspective, this suggests he either doesn't get it, or else he is doing exactly what he accuses the LDS scholars of doing: Not Answering The Question!
I doubt that Jenkins will ever allow the assumptions to his questions to be scrutinized, and therefore I doubt the debate will proceed in any meaningful way.
What I honestly don't get is the irresponsible behavior. It is completely irresponsible to criticize a branch of scholarship that you know virtually nothing about--especially when you have to fundamentally rely upon logical fallacies to do so.
For instance, lets say that there were a group of legitimate scholars who believed that extraterrestrials had made contact with humanity in the distant past. (Currently, I know of no such organized group of legitimate and qualified scholars who believe this.) And let's say that these aliens left a book that touched upon many points of our history, the contents of which could be substantiated by archeology in some remote part of the world. And let's say that numerous--hundreds even--of these scholars have been publishing on this topic for many decades now. And let's also assume that these scholars have largely been rejected by mainstream academia.
I am not prone to believe in aliens. I could say I am biased or predisposed not to believe in them--or at least not the version that is commonly held in our culture. I may even elect to dismiss these claims outright, without giving them any semblance of a thorough evaluation. I may even vocally explain to others why I am not interested in pursuing such an investigation, though without criticizing the specific nature of their research. There would be nothing wrong with this.
What would be completely irresponsible, however, is if I began to openly criticize the research of scholars whose works I had never even read. The fact that they have legitimate degrees from legitimate universities in itself should give me pause. It would be completely unjust and unwise to publically attack their work when I hadn't evaluated it on its own merits. If I disagreed with their conclusions and wanted to publically denounce them, then there would be only one honorable thing to do: search out their best arguments and then refute them with thorough, sound argumentation.
We are all biased, but we shouldn't allow our biases to lead us to irresponsible prejudices. That is exactly what Jenkins has done.
I only believe what is true. I believe this. Thus this must be true.
Most persons prefer the certainty of fiction to the uncertainty of reality.
"How one interprets the text, how one interprets the data on Nihm, and how one interprets and contextualizes the altars with the inscription are all part of the process. Unfortunately, Jenkins makes numerous interpretive (and even factual) errors of both text and artifact when dealing with Nahom/NHM, but in any case the process allows him to conclude 'not evidence.'"
This is because his bias and firm presupposition that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient historical document has led him to stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and repeat over and over "There is no evidence."
As I understand it, Dr. Jenkins has never read the Book of Mormon himself, and he has refused to read anything submitted to him for consideration. For example, Dr. Hamblin provided Dr. Jenkins with a link to an article written by Dr. John Clark on possible archaeological/historical matches between Olmec and Nephite cultures. Dr. Jenkins refuse to read and consider Dr. Clark's article. You write that Dr. Jenkins refuses to read and consider Brant Gardner's work.
Dr. Jenkins just cannot be taken seriously at this point.
I find it laughable that you would comment that what Gardner is doing is "what scholars do". It's quite hilarious actually to suggest that taking a 19th century piece of fiction and trying to draw parallels between it's narrative and the actual history of the New World would be "what scholars do". Gardner's methodology is fundamentally flawed, he is not looking at the evidence and letting it lead him to the truth but rather, he is starting with presuppositions and then seeing where the evidence might possibly converge. This isn't scholarship, and you know it. What Gardner is doing is faith based research and presentation, nothing more nothing less. If he had anything scientifically concrete, he would present it to a reputable journal. He doesn't, so he won't, and here we are yet again.
"It's quite hilarious actually to suggest that taking a 19th century piece of fiction and trying to draw parallels between it's narrative and the actual history of the New World would be "what scholars do"."
Now, I saw what you did there. The Book of Mormon is, a priori, 19th century fiction. Therefore, no need to read an argument for its antiquity, it is ridiculous on its face. But making such certain a priori judgments is manifestly not what scholars do, or at least it is not what they are supposed to do (yet it is, patently, what Jenkins is doing). It is certainly now, as you say, "looking at the evidence and letting it lead [you] to the truth"
And about that. What can you even describe Gardner's methodology? If not, you really can't speak to its flaws, now can you? And clearly, you missed much of the point of this blog post if you think evidence can just lead a person to truth, that anything can be done without presuppositions. Here is a presupposition for you: "you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles." This certainly appears to be a presupposition you are starting with. Are you willing to shed that presupposition and see where the evidence leads? Yeah, didn't think so.
Scholarship is about investigating various claims. If is historical, then it is about investigating claims about the past. Gardner is certainly doing that. Yes, indeed, he is doing with certain presuppositions, assumptions, and biases. But we all do it with those in place. It is impossible to do it without them! And, in fact, while our biases tend to blind us to certain things, they help us see others. There is simply nothing to see at all--certainly nothing meaningful--without the filtering effect of presuppositions and biases. So, we have them. We try to be clear about what they are, we construct methods designed to both help clarify and explicate our biases, and in some sense control and limit them. But we just can't get rid of them. No one can. So we deal with it. Really, they only become a serious problem when they obstruct our capacity to even consider a possibility, as they have with you and Book of Mormon historicity. And so long as that is not a possibility you (or Jenkins), not really much of a conversation to be had, now is there?
I've read enough of Gardner's work to understand his methodology. You are under the delusion that just because someone demands evidence for an incredible claim such as "books from angels and translate them by miracles", that they are.......not willing to accept the evidence if/when it is presented? I really don't care what Gardner publishes or have much of an opinion on it until you start trying to qualify his work as scholarship following sound scientific principles giving credence to the historicity of the Book of Mormon (not that I'm sure that you're necessarily doing this here). Jenkins has repeatedly asked Professor Hamblin for credible evidence of which he has been unable to supply one iota thus far. If Gardner has something substantial, you should point it out to Hamblin and have him present it. And then the fun will really begin. But.....you won't.....he won't.....and we're left laughing at what you believe is "what scholars do".
Well, I see how this game is played. Have a nice day.
To begin with, Gardner starts with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is true. Need I say more? His methodology is fundamentally flawed from the outset. No serious scholar would start out with that assumption regarding any spectacular claim such as this. They would consider the possibility, but not assume it to be true. I might add that Professor Jenkins has taken this position and readily admitted that he could be convinced that the book actually represents actual history if the evidence was provided to prove this and has (repeatedly) asked that it be presented for discussion. This is when apologists start wanting to discuss methodology etc. as they have nothing to offer that rises to the level of scholarly evidence, but would rather discuss why there IS NO EVIDENCE beyond the circumstantial meanderings in their apologetic bag of tricks. Again, everyone is waiting with baited breath for a positive case to be made for the Book of Mormon worthy of a reputable journal........but still nothing. You would rather waste time trying to reach an agreement that your evidence is in fact evidence before you even present it. Just present it if it exists and let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately, you don't have the type of evidence that gets published in reputable journals because it doesn't exist. So your argument turns to an attempt to legitimize what you do have which is far from compelling to anyone but those who are already heavily invested in the church being true such as apologists and many members of the church.
There's no need to lecture me on my narrow view of what the evidence should look like. Present it to a reputable journal and then lecture them about their narrow view when they reject your offering. Be sure to let them know that everyone starts with presuppositions and biases and they should accept yours just as they accept their own. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to learn at your feet.
And, alas, we learn with this that you, in fact, do not actually know anything about Gardner's methodology. As for Jenkins, he has not displayed any kind of openness to the idea at all. Re-read the quote from him at the beginning of this blog post. He says it is not debatable. And, naturally, he has been entirely unwilling to seriously consider any alternative point of view.
Now I am entirely unconvinced that the question Jenkins demands I or any other apologist answer is an appropriate question based on the criteria Dever sets out here. Yet any effort to discuss that with Jenkins, or anybody else promoting his recent blog posts, and come to terms with what might be some more appropriate questions is immediately denounced as a "smoke screen" or an "apologetic bag of tricks." Yet it is nothing of the sort. It represents my actual conviction, based on what I know and understand about "the nature of the material at one's disposal and the intellectual stage of the discipline." I am perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, unlike Jenkins, but no one will actually take the time to discuss it. They just want to ignore it, say I or Hamblin are "muddying the waters" and then reassert the question. Not terribly productive, really.
Posistive evidence for the Book of Mormon, and an overall positive case has been made, several times and in several places. I've recommended a book that is just that. You and Jenkins both have refused to read it. Neither of you are children; you shouldn't need to spoon fed. And whether it is worthy of an academic journal is a judgement you are entirely welcome to make after you have read it.
Alas we see that the emperor has no clothes.
"I can't answer for anyone else, but I can answer for myself. When I began working on Quetzalcoatl mythology, I started with the assumption that I would confirm the standard LDS interpretation. I soon found that the evidence was quite complicated and that in the end it did not confirm the standard LDS interpretation of Quetzalcoatl. That required me to restructure the way I saw the Book of Mormon relative to that particular issue (and to understand that it has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, so it was a restructuring of folklore more than scripture). I never laid aside my testimony, never picked it up again. Nevertheless, I doubt that there are any secular Mesoamericanists who would disagree with my analysis.
On the other hand, I applied the same methodological rigor to placing the Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican context. I did it with the same willingness to a conclusion that doesn't fit, but I found that while there were (as with Quetzalcoatl) some ideas that didn't fit, much did. However, I sincerely doubt that Mesoamericanists would agree with my analysis. The difference lies totally in the realm of their assumed approach to religion, and not in the data."
If his methodology isn't foundationally based on his belief that the Book of Mormon is true, why does he believe that no other mesoamericanists would agree with his analysis? What was different about his analysis? Could it be that he considered the Book of Mormon a historical document before even examining evidence? If you only look for parallels, you're bound to find them...but that's not scholarship.
I understand that you are trying to bracket his methodology outside of his faith but it just doesn't work that way, he is obviously including his faith as the driving force behind all of his research, he may not always force the evidence to fit, but he draws conclusions that could not be drawn if he didn't consider the Book of Mormon true a priori.
I agree that positive evidence for the Book of Mormon has been laid out many times, the problem is that it's exceptionally weak and can't even rise to the level of scholarship that any reputable journal would accept. There's no need for me to make a judgement of whether any material is worthy of an academic journal, that judgement appears to have already been made by the author as this is obviously the most prestigious place to publish his scholarly endeavors....and he has chosen not to for some reason?
You say that you are "perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise", otherwise of what? That the Book of Mormon isn't historical? Or that any one or more of the pieces of evidence amassed by authors such as Gardner isn't compelling?
You should present the best evidence and let the cards fall where they may.
Everyone is biased. Everyone has expectations or assumptions about reality. But you seem to be saying that unless one approaches an issue from complete objectivity and with no expected outcome, then they are unfit to analyze data. As if expectations themselves are off limits.
I don't get this. Science is built on the principle of hypotheses. The reason scientists perform experiments is because they believe/hope/expect/predict certain outcomes. This is pretty much true for all disciplines of knowledge where research is involved. The whole point is to test theories about how the world works.
The rigor of science and scholarship isn't about exterminating assumptions or expectations from inquiry. It is about not allowing those expectations/assumptions/presuppositions/beliefs/biases/etc. to unfairly manipulate the gathering and evaluation of data.
It seems Gardner was trying to demonstrate that despite his preconceived assumptions, he was willing to let the evidence lead him where it would. Even if that meant abandoning what had originally seemed to be an evidence in favor of his religious convictions. In other words, he is demonstrating that he is responsibly aware of and keeping a check on his own bias.
He said he was willing to do this and showed evidence that he had done it. Then he explains that using the same standards of scholarly rigor, he discovered other evidences that supported the Book of Mormon's historicity. And he ascribes the likely rejection of this evidence by secular Mesoamerican scholars as resulting from THEIR inability to check THEIR own bias. Notice that he assumes they would accept his scholarship concerning Quetzalcoatl, but likely reject anything that supported Book of Mormon historicity. Unlike himself, they seem largely unwilling to admit and control their own biases.
If you want to responsibly engage with Gardner's research you are going to have to do a lot more than accuse him of having a bias. That argument will almost always cut both ways when it comes to Book of Mormon historicity. Instead, you will have to adequately demonstrate that his bias is UNFAIRLY manipulating or controlling his presentation and evaluation of evidence. Along with this burden comes the responsibility to actually read his research, accurately represent it, and then refute it in detail.
It would also probably help if you had sufficient experience in the specific discipline in which he is conducting his research. I'm guessing you really aren't qualified to responsibly engage Gardner's research. And since you probably aren't, I doubt you are qualified to determine whether other Mesoamerican scholars are rejecting it because it has no merit or for some other reason--for instance, their own bias, disinterest, or lack of familiarity with the Book of Mormon and the scholarly arguments for its authenticity.
But that would probably be far to difficult. It is much easier to hide behind appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, and vague suppositions about how bias is certainly determining conclusions. Ignorance must always hide behind fallacies to make its claims.
I honestly do not see how that quote helps your case at all. He started with an assumption about LDS folklore and found it to be wrong, precisely because he approached the subject rigorously. And he says he has applied that same rigor to the Book of Mormon.
I understand that his faith, as a bias, will influence his methodology. I never denied that. I denied that his methodology is to start with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is "true". I have already read his chapter on methodology in his book, and he does not. He does start by giving it the benefit of the doubt as history, but that is not inherently "unscholarly" as we can see Hoffmeier, Frendo, and Dever all advocate this kind of approach.
You can read his chapter on method on the Kofford website. It's a free preview. I'm thinking about writing a blog post that summarizes and highlights key points in light of the current discussion.
I think it is safe to say I disagree with your assessment of the positive evidence for the Book of Mormon. I also highly doubt I can convince you otherwise, so I see little reason in trying. But, in any case, there are plenty of reasons an argument may not be published in a scholarly journal. Ryan hear has highlighted one. When an argument becomes about whether something was peer-reviewed rather than the content and merit of the argument itself, there are a number of logical fallacies that become relevant (appeal to authority, red herring, ad hominem, I could go on). It really contributes nothing, though it has been a favorite tactic of Jenkins.
"You say that you are "perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise", otherwise of what? That the Book of Mormon isn't historical? Or that any one or more of the pieces of evidence amassed by authors such as Gardner isn't compelling?"
Umm, I think the subject of the paragraph within with you pulled that sentence makes it obvious, but I am perfectly willing to be convinced that Jenkins main question IS an appropriate one based on "the nature of the material at one's disposal and the intellectual stage of the discipline." It would require illustrating that we have the necessary information in the Book of Mormon, the right kind of material data from right time and place, and that the intellectual stage of the discipline (both New World archaeology, and Book of Mormon studies) are capable of addressing this kind of question.
At present, I have doubts on all fronts. The Book of Mormon does not allow to determine a lot about the peoples material culture, there are precious few readable pre-Classic inscriptions (we don't know the ancient, native names of most culture groups there), 95+% of Mesoamerican ruins remain unexcavated, and serious LDS treatment of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is in its infancy. I mean, the book that Gardner is replacing (in my mind at least) as the go-to source on this is 30 years old! And before that book, there was essentially nothing but garbage. Sorenson's first book was groundbreaking because it was more rigorous and professional and comprehensive than anything else done before. The same can be said about Gardner's book today: it is more rigorous, professional, and comprehensive than anything else before it. But only 2 serious treatments of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, and those 30 years apart from each other? I'd say we are still in early development here and it is hardly time to throw in the towel because we can't answer some pointed questions just yet.
In fact, now is exactly the wrong time to stop. We have Gardner's book just coming out, Mark Wright is a recent PhD who is just beginning to publish on the Book of Mormon, and another long time Mesoamerican expert with decades of experience in the field who is about to start publishing on the topic publicly after all these years. I think there is consider future promise for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.
"You should present the best evidence and let the cards fall where they may."
You keep saying this as if no one should ever do anything else for their position. No one should ever comment on the nature of the debate, or make observations about the arguments being advanced by the other side, or counter-assertions about what the evidence should be. You know where to find what I consider the best evidence. I am more than willing to let you and anyone else read it and "let the chips fall where they may," by which I mean you can come to your own conclusions. That does not mean I am going to stop discussing what I consider to be important points in the discussion. Of course, the chips can fall where they may on that as well. You and others may not see it the same way I do. What is important to me may seem like a smoke screen to you. OK, fine. How am I interfering with that? Is simply continuing to discuss it some how not "letting the chips fall where they may"? If so, is the fact that you keep commenting here evidence that you just won't let the chips fall where they may on this? Seriously, this repeated mantra seems incredibly hollow to me.
Gardner did not assume that the story would fit the BOM narrative, but he did assume that the BOM narrative was historical. This is a prime example of why his methodology is flawed. He wasn't looking at the history to determine anything other than if it paralleled something that he ALREADY considered historical. It didn't matter to him that it didn't match up well enough to form a parallel because he didn't need it to. He had already decided before he even began his research what his conclusion was. And we all know that if you look hard enough for parallels, you'll find them. He specifically says that he never laid his testimony down and he never picked it back up again. You can't say that you're testimony is never on the line out of one side of you mouth and then the next minute say that you are only giving "the benefit of the doubt" as it's dishonest. As a test of his scientific methodology, what other explanations, rational or otherwise does Gardner give for his comparisons other than the BOM is historical and matches what he found in mesoamerican history?
Yes, Gardner's testimony creates a bias that favors historicity. This has never been denied. But that bias is not the essence of his method, and does not disqualify him from doing rigorous scholarship. (If you think it does, then that really reveals more about your own biases and prejudices and it does about reality.) In fact, it arguably frees him up to assess the potential relationship to history more freely: he has nothing on the line when he looks at the evidence (since he is going to believe it anyway), therefore is free to evaluate the evidence and accept or reject it on its merits. I would be much more concerned about his biases if his testimony depended on the evidence.
Seriously, if you are not willing to do even the minimum effort to read the most recent, and most detailed elaboration of his methodology, which is available for free on the Kofford Books website, why, exactly, are we still having this conversation?
Sorry, I hadn't been back to read your reply. I find your reasoning as to how Gardner's faith has no affect on his methodology interesting. You admit that he is biased in favor of the book's historicity and that no matter what pieces of data he looks at, it won't affect this a priori belief yet it somehow doesn't affect his conclusions regarding convergences of data? He is taking archeological data from the pre-classic period and attempting to match it up with a 19th century text of very questionable provenance allowing the archeological data to dictate the meaning of the text....and you don't see a problem with his methodology? How would he NOT find parallels and convergences with this approach? I understand that he attempts to use controls such as time periods but these types of controls still allow parallelism a wide berth. Also, I've been completely unable to ascertain any cogent explanation of his theory on translation (tight as opposed to loose) as his conclusions and methodology demand BOTH to be true simultaneously. This is about as messy as you could get and it's no wonder that he would never try to present any of this to a refereed journal. His approach might allow a doubting member to temporarily suspend doubt but it is in no way persuasive in any other setting with any other audience outside of believing mormons. He not only attempts to imprint the archeological data onto the pages of the BOM, but he is forced to do violence to the text in order to do so. He must reinterpret the text in order to make it fit the data. He must specifically argue that a horse isn't a horse, a chariot isn't a chariot and steel isn't steel even when used in differing contexts that would specifically infer that it was in fact what we understand to be steel today, just to make the data fit. He also must argue an advanced, literate civilization which had the capability of creating permanent records, frequently did keep permanent records, yet, left none save the one delivered by an angel to a 19th century farm boy. And he has the insurmountable task of explaining how all of the advanced technologies some of which lasting for over 500 years didn't diffuse but suddenly became extinct. The only reason anyone would even attempt to jump through mental hoops like this is if they held the BOM as historical a priori and were willing to go to great lengths to establish any semblance of historicity for it. Totally unconvincing.
One thing that I find interesting is that Jenkins and others are willing to spend a large amount of time arguing about why they aren't willing to spend their time reading what they deem as pseudo-scholarship. The less time one spends arguing from a position of ignorance the more time one has to remedy their ignorance.
Unless, of course, one sees an advantage in remaining ignorant on certain topics.
A hypothesis is an educated guess based on limited yet known and objective evidence. To form a hypothesis based on the belief in a miracle is not scientific as it has no basis in objective reality. To compare scientific bias with miracle based bias is disingenuous at best. I personally have no problem with you believing in the Book of Mormon as a matter of faith, it's when you try to assert it's historicity that I take issue. So the crux of the problem here is that you believe science and scholarship allow for supernatural explanation. This is just plain false. Proclaiming that "God did it" has no explanatory power and is alien to both science and scholarship.
I find it interesting that you first suggest that I read his research and refute it in detail, and then out of the other side of your mouth you suggest that I'm not qualified to determine why mesoamericanists would reject any of Gardner's work. What you're essentially saying is even if I read his research and disagree with it, I'm not qualified to refute it......but I should read it and attempt to refute it....oi...... Anyway, I'll not waste too much of my time on his research because you are at least partially right, I would much prefer to hear a qualified person refute it but unfortunately, since Gardner's stuff will never be published in a reputable journal, I may never get the chance.
Drawing vague parallels between preclassic mesoamerican culture and whatever you can read into the Book of Mormon is not scholarship and it is definitely not scientific. He has gathered a very large set of coincidental data in which the sum is much less than the whole. Is there any one piece of evidence or parallel that you consider particularly strong?
Gardner may not always try to force a parallel where it just doesn't fit but because of his a priori assumption that the Book of Mormon is historical, he finds himself often using a shoe horn. Such as trying to equate "false Christs" before Christ's time with "men dressing up as Gods" in pre-classic mesoamerica...etc. To try to argue that the most viable explanation of a "link" such as this is because an angel actually gave JS a set of gold plates describing anachronism after anachronism is...well...irresponsible to put it mildly. What other explanations might there be that don't require you to suspend reality and invoke the "miracle" solution? Is it more likely that throughout many times and cultures in history that men have tried to set themselves up as Gods to their people? Might Joseph Smith have read about these things and decided to include these types of biblical sounding phrases in his book? This is a much more likely and rational explanation.
"On a personal level, I ask once again: for you personally, what is the point that would make you lose faith in the case you make supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? (I certainly do not ask anything concerning your own religious faith, but specifically your belief in the Book's literal historicity). How, in theory, could your own view be falsified?"
I don't think there is anything that would cause you to reject the historicity of the BoM because you "know" it to be true. So what even is the point here?
What you are saying is you don't understand why people who believe the Book of Mormon is ancient choose to study it in an ancient context. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you. Sorry.


She tells us clearly the spirit of Christ is the soul of His life. It is the very life of His own life.
The breath of Christ is His spirit and life (John 20:22). It is in no way talking about another individual being. This is the correct and consistent understanding of "the three highest powers in heaven." The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


text:
Myanmar or Burma as it was earlier known is a country situated on the southeast of Asia. Read on to find out some interesting and fun facts about Myanmar.
Facts About Myanmar
Myanmar is a country that is located in the Southeast Asia. It was earlier called Burma but its name was changed to Myanmar in 1989. China borders it on the north and northeast while on the east and southeast, it is bordered by Laos and Thailand. This is a country which is composed of 135 main races, of which some of the prime ones are Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Bamar, Mon, Rakhine and Shan. The name Myanmar is derived from the local name Myanma Naingngandaw, which is a name used by the regime which is currently in power there. While the real meaning of the name is not clear, it is interesting to note that it has been used since the 13th century, mainly to refer to the ethnic group of Myanma. The population of Myanmar is about 60 million. The main language spoken in the country is Myanmar though English is also widely spoken and understood.
Image: eGuide [email protected]
Area: 676,578 km2
Capital: Naypyidaw
Currency: Kyat
Official Languages: Burmese
Independence Day: January 4, 1948
Dialing Code: +95
Type Of Government: Unitary presidential constitutional republic
Interesting & Fun Facts About Myanmar
Myanmar is very rich in natural resources like petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, some marble, limestone, precious stones, natural gas and hydropower.
The climate of Myanmar is generally humid, and it receives less rainfall but the temperature remains quite mild all through the year.
There are many neighboring countries which surrounds Myanmar; namely, Bangladesh in the west, India in the northwest, China in the southeast, Laos and Thailand in the East.
The Irrawaddy River in Myanmar is believed to be a symbol of 'continuity'.
Myanmar, which has a total area of 678,500 square kilometers, is the largest country in mainland Southeast Asia, and the 40th-largest in the world. It is somewhat smaller than the U.S. state of Texas and slightly larger than Afghanistan.
The country has been plagued with rebels in various ethnic areas ever since its independence.
Myanmar is divided into states, divisions, townships, wards and villages.
The national currency of Myanmar is Kyat.
More than 20,000 people were killed and thousands were left homeless, in the May 2008 Nargis Typhoon, which destroyed villages and rice fields.
Major credit cards are not always accepted in Myanmar, so it's always better to carry some cash.
In 2006 the capital of Myanmar was moved from Yangon (formerly Rangoon) to Nay Pyi Taw.
Initially, many Burmese girls served the courts of the Kings of Siam, now known as Thailand.
There are four major rivers in Myanmar: Ayeyarwaddy River, Thanlwin River, Chindwin River, and Sittaung River.
Myanmar has three main seasons, hot season (March to May), rainy season (June to October) and cold season (November to February).
Mandalay, the last capital of the Myanmar Kingdom is the cultural center of the country.
The lowest point in Myanmar is the Andaman Sea (0 m) and the highest point is Hkakabo Razi (5,881 m).
Myanmar depends on agriculture for more than half of its GDP.
The ethnic origins of Myanmar are a mixture of Indo-Aryans, who moved to the area in 700 BC.
Common local unit of weight is peiktha (viss), which equals to 3.6 pounds.
Most common unit of measure is feet and inches.
Literacy Rate in Myanmar is 83 per cent and life expectancy is 57 years.
Myanmar is endowed with a rich ecological diversity. Here, you will find about 100 bird species, 300 reptiles, 7000 species of plant life and 300 recorded mammal species. The rich ecological diversity is also an important national asset.
Myanmar is mostly a Theravada Buddhist country. Here, you will also find other religions such as Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Muslims and Christians.
Under British rule, Myanmar was the richest country in south-east Asia.
Interesting Facts About Holland
Facts About Qutub Minar
Facts About Aztec Ruins
Facts About Big Ben
Colosseum Facts
Facts About Sears Tower
Africa | Asia | Australia | Austria | Beach Resorts | Beach Vacations | Caribbean Tourist Attractions | Europe Tourist Attractions | France | Worldwide Holidays
More in 'Travel'
Chail - Quaint Hill Station | Facts About Fiji | Four Seasons Resort Bali | Reykjavik Attractions | Facts About Bahrain

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


SMS-24 is a leading provider of SMS messaging service in Czech Republic (+420). Our service allows you to send short text messages right from web browser to cell phones of your clients or friends in Czech Republic (+420) and world wide. You can also send SMS right from your application or your website using our API.
Price of one SMS message — 0.0312 €.
SMS-24 offer the best bulk SMS rates in Czech Republic (+420).


text:
import React from "react";
import { StyleSheet } from "react-native";
import { Slider, SliderProps } from "react-native-elements";

type Props = SliderProps & {
  thumbRound?: boolean;
};
const CustomSlider = ({ thumbStyle, thumbRound, ...props }: Props) => (
  <Slider
    thumbStyle={thumbRound ? [thumbStyle] : [styles.thumbSquare, thumbStyle]}
    {...props}
  />
);
export default CustomSlider;

const styles = StyleSheet.create({
  thumbSquare: {
    borderRadius: 0,
    width: 8
  }
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Marinella, eller Kyriaki Papadopoulou, född 19 maj 1938 i Thessaloniki, Grekland, är en grekisk sångerska.

Den musikaliska karriären startade år 1957 när hon släppte sången Nitsa Elenitsa (Lilla Helen). Hon arbetade under en lång tid med den populära folkmusikern Stelios Kazantzidis. År 1974 ställde hon upp med låten Λίγο κρασί, λίγη θάλασσα και το αγόρι μου (Ligo krasi, ligi thalassa kai to agori mou, Lite vin, lite hav och min pojkvän) i Eurovision Song Contest i Brighton och tävlade för Grekland. Hon var även delaktig i ett antal grekiska musikaler där hon både sjöng och spelade.

Marinella släppte under 70- och 80-talen tidsenliga pop-album, men även Tribute-album såsom "I Marinella Tragouda Sofia Vempo" (Marinella sjunger Sofia Vempo) från 1980 och "Megales Stigmes (Stora Stunder) från 1984, bidrog till att musikstilarna i hennes repertoar varierats från Rebetika och Tango till Nyklassisk musik av Manos Hadjidakis och Mikis Theodorakis.

År 1997 utkommer en pop-skiva med Stefanos Korkolis som låtskrivare.

År 1998 framträdde Marinella i Musikhallen i Aten.

År 2000 framträder hon i tv-serien "Istera Irthan I Melisses" där hon ännu en gång medverkar som en rollfigur i ett drama. Ett helt album med samma namn som serien släpps i vilket hon framför seriens sånger.

År 2004 återkom Marinella med helt nyskrivet pop-material i albumet "Ammos Itane" med text av Lina Nikolakoupoulou och musik av Nikos Antipas. Albumet genomsyras av orkestrala arrangemang tydliga tidsenliga elektroniska influenser.  Marinella lämnar skivbolaget EMI efter detta album i vilket hon släppt material sedan 1987.

År 2005 släpptes en tidsenlig ny Folk-Popskiva med musik av Giorgos Theofanous. Albumet innehåller tre duetter med tre olika musiker: Glykeria, Kostas Makedonas och Antonis Remos
Marinella återgår till Universal (dåvarande Polygram) med detta album som även släpps i formatet "DualDisc" som en av de första artisterna i Grekland.

Vintersäsongen 2006-07 hade Marinella och Antonis Remos en krogshow tillsammans, namngiven "Ord är överflödiga", (Ta Logia Ine Perita), efter en låt inspelad år 1974 av Marinella. Succén följdes upp under 2007 och avslutades våren 2008. Ett livealbum innehållandes Marinellas och Antonis Remos framträdanden på Athinon Arena släpptes år 2007.

Vintern 2008 beträder Marinella och sångaren Yiannis Parios scenen på "Diogenis Studio" för en krogshow som kom att kallas "Årets Samarbete". 6 november gick startskottet för samarbetet som fortsätter vintern ut.

Enligt fansiten "marinella.dom.gr" arbetar Marinella på en ny skiva.

Referenser

Grekiska sångare
Sångare inom populärmusik
Artister som representerat Grekland i Eurovision Song Contest
Kvinnor
Födda 1938
Levande personer
Deltagare i Eurovision Song Contest 1974


Charleston Cheese Dip - La Panzanella Artisanal Food Co.
Cheesy bacon goodness, perfect for entertaining at home or for bringing to your next potluck!
In a medium bowl, mixed mayonnaise, cream cheese, cheddar cheese, Monterrey Jack cheese, green onions, and cayenne pepper, and transfer to a shallow baking dish, such as a pie pan.
Crumble a few of your favorite Croccantini over the mixture, and bake at 350F until heated through, about 15 minutes.
Remove from the oven, and top with bacon. Serve immediately with more Croccantini, or refrigerate for up to one week.


An alarming study in a leading publication concluded that certain smart phone usage is seriously eroding our personal privacy. "Whenever we use location-aware devices, or tap on Waze or dating apps like Tinder, or check-in on Facebook, we are really diminishing our own privacy," says the researcher Dr. Hatuka.
Five Tips which every savvy smartphone user should follow.
Leaving your GPS on all the time not only drains your battery faster, but also makes your location available to many apps. Turn it off when you don't need it. Limit its usage to getting directions.
Do you really need Maps running all the time? Turn it off when you don't need it any more. Why do you want to let internet companies track your location history continuously? On your device simply go to Settings > Location Services, and delete location history and turn it off on Android devices attached to your Google account.
Check-ins pioneered by Foursquare is now available in many apps like Facebook for sharing your current location. "Don't do it" for the sake of your privacy. There is no telling who may be stalking you or targeting your empty house when you're gone.
No doubt, location aware apps can be super convenient. Whether you are doing a simple Google search for Starbucks "near me" or using an app like OK Cupid to find a date in the neighborhood, sharing your location gives you the most relevant results fast. Be cautious how often you share your location with apps, lest your life becomes an open book.
Dating is now gamified, whether you are using a site like match.com or an app like Tinder. These apps require you to provide a real phone number where you can receive and send texts. Before sharing your real mobile number with strangers, consider getting a second number for your mobile. iPlum app gives you a real phone number that you can use to isolate those texts and calls.


The Mediterranean Method Handouts highlight the principles of the food traditions of the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea that can reduce the risk of heart disease, certain cancers, and Alzheimer's disease. Easy Mediterranean diet tips featured include focusing on plant-based foods, using olive oil instead of butter, adding flavor with herbs and spices, enjoying meals with others, and more.
You don't have to travel any further than your local grocery store and your kitchen to discover the benefits of eating the Mediterranean way. The Mediterranean Method Handouts highlight the principles of the food traditions of the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea that can reduce the risk of heart disease, certain cancers, and Alzheimer's disease. Easy Mediterranean diet tips featured include focusing on plant-based foods, using olive oil instead of butter, adding flavor with herbs and spices, enjoying meals with others, and more.


text:
Category: Agriculture April 4, 2018 by DTN Team
DTN, an independent source of insight and analysis, and decision-support solutions to customers worldwide in agriculture, energy, commodities and financial analytics, announced today that it has completed the acquisition of Spensa Technologies, a precision agriculture technology company. Terms of the acquisition were not announced.
Spensa's industry-leading sensors and innovative technologies help growers better manage agronomic pests such as insects, weeds and disease. The company gathers high-resolution data, then models that data to reveal insights to help agriculturalists make the most informed decisions possible.
"Combining Spensa's current product offerings with DTN's Agribusiness and Producer platforms and infrastructure will provide a more comprehensive solution to DTN customers," said DTN Co-CEO Sheryl von Blucher. "Spensa's agronomic capabilities will further complement DTN's agriculture industry offerings with differentiated actionable agronomic information and insights. Additionally, the acquisition creates opportunities for DTN to expand the company's offerings to non-core markets like fruit and tree markets in California."
Spensa was named one of the top 25 innovative ag-tech startups by Forbes in 2017. The company is based in West Lafayette, IN, in the Purdue Research Park and has strong academic relationships with the university, which is a renowned hub for agriculture.


Diabetes causes a person's blood sugar, or glucose, levels to become too high. There are two main types of diabetes.
Insulin causes sugar to move from the bloodstream into the body's cells, which use it as an energy source.
Eating the RDA for fruit should not increase a person's risk of diabetes. Fruit juice is particularly high in sugar but drinking no more than 1 cup of fruit juice per day can help keep sugar intake within healthful limits.
Losing weight and doing daily exercise can help reduce this risk. Some medications can also decrease a person's risk of developing diabetes.
Some people use the glycemic index (GI) to plan their diet. GI is a measure of how much a particular food raises a person's blood glucose. Foods with a low GI raise blood glucose less than foods with a high GI.


text:
"When we decided to homeschool with Sonlight, I was nervous as it was so different from what I knew as 'school,'" writes Karen B of Nixa, MO. "What if I ruined my kids? Didn't school have to include textbooks and workbooks? The more I read about it, however, the more I liked the idea of learning through wonderful, quality books. Just the thought of sitting and reading with my kids made homeschooling seem like something I could actually do. It's 13 years later, and we've never looked back. Three kids have graduated using Sonlight. We've shared fascinating books together, had amazing discussions along the way, and when we took time off at Christmas, the kids were indignant that we also took time off from reading. After all, "that isn't school!" I'm a little jealous I didn't get to learn this way in school, but I'm thankful I've been able to provide this for my children."
Here, Adam (16) studies 20th Century World History.
"I am so thankful to learn alongside my children," writes Kimberly F of Austin, TX. "I have many gaps in my education because I was taught out of dry, boring books that I had no connection to. Now that we are reading real books, we are connecting in way that is helping me learn. This passion is contagious and my kids are catching this same love of learning. The best part is that we are sharing these experiences together as a family. It's easy to get distracted with the things that consume our days. With Sonlight, I get to set aside intentional, quality time with my children every day.
What a blessing Sonlight has been!"
Here, Hadalin (6) and Niles (7) discover a new tactile way of practicing their spelling words of the week. They are studying HBL B with LA K and LA 1
"At first, buying the full Sonlight programs seemed expensive, but I have received the pay off," writes Andrea S of Burlington, WA. "Last year, my oldest began taking classes at the local community college [while still in high school]. He has done excellently in his college classes–all A's and B's.
"During our 13 years with Sonlight, however, our family has moved 10 times. I have also homeschooled through three pregnancies and the joy of newborns and toddlers. Sonlight makes it easy to cuddle on the couch and do the day's reading together. It's all planned out for you!"
In this photo: After a cold, dark winter, Elora (8, HBL C), Kerys (3), Isaac (14, HBL 100), and Corwin (12, HBL W) escaped with their Sonlight books to Guemes Island to soak up some sunshine.
Why Sonlight? »
Textbooks vs historical fiction, novels and biographies
Which would you prefer?
"I've taught at the college level for 25+ years. Let me tell you that students who ONLY know how to read textbooks have no experience with a variety of viewpoints or extended arguments. They do not know how to evaluate whether or not an author has actually supplied evidence for his conclusions. They're so used to having everything predigested for them, with boxes pulling out the important points and colorful graphics on each page, that they have no idea how to read an actual book when there's no one to do their thinking for them! It's no problem whatsoever to switch from real books to textbooks; it's going the other way that's the issue. I'd say that not using textbooks is a real plus for students. And when they run into textbooks in college they'll be several steps ahead of those who have no other background."
-2j'smom, June 2005
A lot of homeschoolers follow the methods with which they were taught in classroom schools. They use textbooks. But are textbooks the best way to teach?
Take a look at this excerpt from a seventh grade history textbook used by many homeschoolers:
The shot heard 'round the world. On the morning of April 19, 1775, the first shots of the War for Independence (sometimes called the Revolutionary War) were fired at Lexington, Massachusetts. It is not known for sure who fired the first shot, but it was a shot heard 'round the world, for it was to change the course of human history.
After killing eight Americans and wounding ten others at Lexington, the British marched on to Concord, destroying the military supplies stored there. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was not quite over, however. As the British troops headed back to Boston, patriots fired on them from behind trees, shrubs, and barns. Although 93 Americans died that day, the British lost 273 men. For a brief moment in history, little Massachusetts stood alone against one of the great empires of the world.
The Second Continental Congress. Less than a month after the Battle of Lexington and Concord, on May 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. John Hancock was elected president. The assembled representatives of the American people decided emphatically that they would fight. The Continental Army was established, a call was issued to the colonies to raise troops and funds, and George Washington (1732-1799), who had distinguished himself as a lieutenant colonel in the French and Indian War, was appointed commander-in-chief.
[Source: Jerry H. Combee, Ph.D., Kurt Grussendorf, Beka Horton, Brian Ashbaugh, Susan Etheridge, History of the World in Christian Perspective, Third Edition (Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book, 1995), 310.]
Context, Drama, Story?
Surprisingly, this particular American history textbook says little else about the Revolutionary War. It gives us four more dense paragraphs in which we find the following climactic statement:
In 1781, five years after the Declaration of Independence, the last major battle of the War for Independence was over — an American victory, a British surrender! [Ibid].
I don't know about you, but despite this book's obvious attempt to present as many facts as possible, I'd expect a little more depth in a 7th grade textbook. I'd expect more than seven paragraphs of names and dates to cover the Revolutionary War.
I'd expect a little more context, too, in which to anchor all that information. So "John Hancock was elected president": Who cares? The text doesn't tell us a thing about John Hancock, how he came to be president, or why it even matters.
Even more important, why did the Revolutionary War happen? What were its consequences? How does it affect us today?
Alas, this "popular" Christian textbook addresses none of these questions.
Do you want more than dates?
A seventh grade world history textbook published by another major homeschool provider devotes all of seven paragraphs to World War II. The literary style is more vigorous than the last text from which we quoted. (It includes more active verbs, more exciting descriptions.) But truly: do you think this is the kind of material that will help a seventh grader to remember what s/he ought about World War II?
After five paragraphs that "explain" the Nazis' rise to power, read what this textbook says:
Slowly the Russians began to turn back the Nazi forces in the east. In the west, the United States and Britain began to chip away at the Axis empire. They landed in North Africa in 1942, then in Sicily in 1943, and then on the mainland of Italy two months later. Finally, on June 6, 1944, known as D-day
[Source: Terri Koontz, B.S., Mark Sidwell, Ph.D., S.M. Bunkder, M.A., World Studies for Christian Schools, Second Edition (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1998), 432-433.]
Again, the textbook lists many names and dates, but provides almost no context. With all its beautiful vocabulary and vibrant sentence structure, it provides no story in which to anchor the information, no drama to make the information memorable.
Here's just a short segment from Sonlight's Third Year Read-Aloud, Johnny Tremain. It describes Boston citizens watching British soldiers return from their defeat at the Battle of Lexington:
Although no townsmen, except only the doctors, were permitted on the wharf, Johnny knew that hundreds of them stood well back and in the darkness, gloating. They were not saying much, only watching. Then one man began to whistle and the next took it up and the next and the next. The whistling was shrill as a fife. They had not forgotten the prophecy of that morning, "ËThey go out by "Yankee Doodle," but they'll dance to it before nightfall!'
"Yankee Doodle' filled the darkness. . . . Four more boats were coming in. Johnny dared move out onto the wharf, but he still kept well in shadow. More wounded. Could these be the very men who had started out so confidently? Bedraggled, dirty, torn uniforms, torn flesh, lost equipment. Faces ghastly with fatigue and pain. Some were twisting and crying out.
The first boats were filled with privates. They had been packed in, and now were being tossed ashore, like so much cordwood. Most of them were pathetically good and patient, but he saw an officer strike a man who was screaming.
Johnny's hands clenched. "ËIt is just as James Otis said,' he thought. "ËWe are fighting, partly, for just that. Because a man is a private is no reason he should be treated like cordwood.'
[Source: Esther Forbes, Johnny Tremain (New York: Dell Publishing 1943), 240-241. Sonlight item #DA04.]
Sonlight's approach to homeschool curriculum, in which we use historical fiction, novels and biographies, provides the context; it communicates information in the midst of a story. You can't miss the drama because "you are there." You feel the pain. You grieve the losses. And you understand and remember. Maybe not the exact dates. But you do remember the general places and times in history. Because you understand the broader context. This is one of the many benefits of homeschool.
As Shary in Virginia wrote:
Yesterday I decided — just for fun — to ask my 10-year-old son, "What year did Franklin Roosevelt take office?" The book from which I got the question provided three choices for answers: 1933, 1903, 1973.
My son's response: "Well, let's see. The 1920s were when the US was doing really well and people were making lots of money. Then the stock market crashed and we went into the Depression. So it had to have been 1933 when he took office."
My response: Thank you, Sonlight!
Do I care that he remembered the exact date? No. Do I care that he knew enough of what was going on that he could figure it out? You bet.
Are you ready to experience the benefits of a literature-based homeschool curriculum for your family?
Preschool Pre-K K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th


text:
Riverview Elementary School
Information on Food Services
Information on Transportation
RES Boosters
Counselor Page
Information on the Counselor's Office
Information on Field Trips
Information on the Library
Information on Math Department
Information on Parent Resources
Schedule Resources
Information on STEM
Information on Tutoring
Staff & Teachers
RES 2019-20 School Year
By Barbara Harris
LYON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD POLICY ___________________________________________________________JC
Medication in Schools
Lyon County School District prohibits the administration of any medication to students in grades
Pre-kindergarten through 6, prescriptive or non-prescriptive, without written permission of the
physician, parent/guardian, and the registered or licensed practical nurse employed by LCSD.
Non-prescriptive medications include, but are not limited to, aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen,
cough syrup, and other medicinal health aides available for purchase over the counter without
age or identification requirements. Students in grades 7-12 are permitted to carry and self-
administer over-the-counter medications according to the dosage recommendations.
Pursuant to SB 453, Lyon County School District will provide undesignated auto-injectible
epinephrine to any student on an LCSD campus during regular school hours who the school
nurse or trained/qualified employee reasonably believes is experiencing anaphalaxis.
Undesignated epinephrine will be administered according to the standing order obtained
annually.
Students may carry and/or self-adminster asthma inhalers, insulin, glucagon and Epi Pens with a
completed "consent and request for medication during the school day" where both Authorized
Medical or Health Care Provider and parent/guardian have in writing stated the student may
carry and self-adminster.
District administration shall establish administrative regulations, which comply with the Nevada
Nurse Practice Act NRS 632, NAC 632, governing the request for and administration of
medications and medicines by District personnel. Requirements contained in these regulations
shall provide for the health, safety, and well-being of all students, and shall relieve the Lyon
County School District, its Board of Trustees, and all agents and employees of the District from
any liability for the administration of any requested medication authorized by a licensed
prescriber (NRS Chapters 453, 454, or 639) or from students in grades 7-12 self-administering.
Reference: NRS 632, NAC 632, NRS 453, 454, 639, and SB 453
Policy #JC
1200 FERRETTO PKWY
DAYTON, NV 89403
Lyon County School District provides equal opportunity in its programs, activities, and employment. Please contact the webmaster at erikagarcia@lyoncsd.org if you have any trouble navigating this site.


Merely sending your child to a neighborhood tuition centre is simply not enough. That you must flip into an lively participant of their learning and make it potential for they're outfitted for achievement in the event that they're to hold up their grades and can be found out worthwhile. Following are 5 points that you'll be able to do as a dad or mum to spice up the progress your child makes when attending a tuition centre.
1. Take the time to select the perfect tuition centre or you could't get the perfect outcomes.
You will not at all see good enhancements in your child in case you occur to ship them to a subpar tuition centre. Pretty than merely strolling into the first centre you uncover your native house, spend some time on-line researching your complete decisions. Consider not solely worth, nevertheless what the lecturers have and what their success worth has been with totally different kids.
Associate with the perfect tuition centre you possibly can discover and you'll discover good ends in a shorter timeframe.
2. Hold in fastened contact with the tuition centres to see what you'll be able to do at dwelling to help extra progress.
You might't merely sign your child up on the centre and look at your self out of the coaching course of. As a dad or mum, you have to keep pretty energetic inside the strategy of bringing your child's grades up. You do this by speaking with the centre on a routine basis to ask what you could work on collectively along with your child at dwelling.
There may be some points you'll be able to do collectively along with your child at dwelling that may help them improve their grades in a shorter timeframe. Energetic dad and mother really make a distinction in how kids research and the best way motivated kids maintain all by the tutoring course of.
3. Discuss collectively along with your child so that you know how they actually really feel about their experience.
You additionally must be talking collectively along with your child often about their experience on the centre. Learn the way they actually really feel about their teacher and whether or not or not they actually really feel the analysis are robust or easy. They have to be challenged inside the centre nevertheless should not have a approach of defeat or impossibility.
You will know your child is getting the ultimate phrase tuition centre experience after they're challenged and actually really feel it is a bit robust at cases, however moreover experience good achievements that make them proud.
4. Encourage your child to work extra sturdy and maintain focused, giving a great deal of reward and acknowledgement of their progress.
Make it possible for to take care of a constructive perspective collectively along with your child even after they're struggling or do not profit from the schooling centre experience. Encourage them to stay focused and protect attempting and help them get better from points and stumbling elements as so much as attainable. Pay shut consideration to the accomplishments they've achieved and play them up like they seem to be a large deal.
The additional worthwhile your child feels inside the tuition centre the upper they'll actually really feel about their tutorial effectivity. As their dad or mum, attempt to be their largest fan cheering them on all the time.
5. Give it some time sooner than you make judgments on their progress.
An entire lot of children will experience enhancements reasonably quickly, nevertheless some may take a bit longer to boost. Sooner than you resolve the tutoring centre is simply not working, give it some time. With time all kids will see good enhancements.


text:
current, Employee, Manager, Office
Florence Harawa
Head of Girl Child Student project
Designated Safeguarding Officer
Florence was born in Chizaula Mzimba in September 1980. She currently lives in Lupaso with her husband and four children. There are nine people in total living in her house.
Florence is one of 9 children but 3 passed away. Her mother passed in 2009, but her father remains alive, and was always an advocate encouraging his girls to education.
Florence completed standard 1 to 8 of primary school and went on to Nkhamenya secondary school. Her mother did small business selling fish to support her education but she struggled to pay the fees. At the end of Form 1 Florence had to drop out of school and stayed at home as there were no fees. Her brother finished to form four and scored 2 points in agriculture which is equivalent to 90% plus in his exam and decided he would stay at home and farm.
It was at this stage that Florence returned to school, she had lost her original place in school and she completed form 2 in another school. Her brother got married and now there was no fees available for Florence.
When she was 18 years old she got married to Peter. They has 5 children the oldest is Veronica, who is 17 years and has special needs, she stays at home where Peter is her carer. Then there are three boys Mwiza (14 years, form 1), Abel (11 years, standard 7), Gracious (9 years, Standard 4) and Hopejohn (4 months).
(Peter is one of the nicest, most caring and supportive men I have ever met. He has enabled Florence to excel at what she is doing because of the support she gets from her husband, which is how it should be, of course.)
Always the caring mother, Florence has in her house ten people, her husband and children accompanied by Gomezga and Hellings, both orphans from when her brother died. Along with them is Lusungu Moyo a young girl funded for school by Wells for Zoe but lives too far from the secondary school she was selected to attend and her family don't have enough money to feed her. Florence has another orphan called Gilbert who is currently learning to be a carpenter and her sister Prominence who also works with Wells for Zoë.
Florence started her life as a voluntary community facilitator in St John of God Services. In 2011 Florence returned to school, funded by Wells for Zoë and finished her form 4 in 2014. From this time Florence transferred to working with Wells for Zoë. At first she was working with preschools working through the Chigmezgo self-help cluster to encourage communities to have their own preschools and encourage the care givers to work on a voluntary basis.
Since 2015 Florence is key in running the Wells for Zoe Girl Child Student project where she is responsible for organising the supporting Saturday Classes and meeting students and families that are funded by WfZ.
We will have 256 girls this year and Florence will know them all and all their circumstances.
She will care for them and let them away with nothing!
Now she is very happy to know more about computing and doing the spreadsheet for the girls (info from the girls and their results).
Head of Girl Child Project


Roo management plan: effective or not?
Roo management plan: effective or..
Victorian farmers are frustrated with the state government's handling of its extension the kangaroo pet food trial.
Legislative framework will be in place by October, with the trial continuing until a proper plan is agreed upon.
To find out more, I caught up with the V-F-F's president Leonard Vallance.


Last December I made a list of things I hope to see in 2016. Now that we're officially almost done with 2016 and by some miracle the world has not ended, let's reflect on a few things that should be understood and most definitely left in the year 2016.
Calling Women Whores: It's not nice! There are so many words for promiscuous women or a woman that chooses to be comfortable in her skin. If Suzie is confident enough to get naked online and she's over 18, kudos to her. Teach your sons and daughters to respect her just as much. Lack of clothes doesn't equate lack of self-respect. Dont destroy Suzie's confidence because you disagree with her views Apparently this isn't like this in a lot of countries. Americans just make everything sexual. The female body is normal. Get over it!
Homophobia: I'm not sure why this has to be said. Homophobia isn't a fear of anything it's just nonsense. Who someone chooses to sleep with or settle down with isn't harming me I don't understand why some people feel so strongly against people wanting to marry whoever they want. Crushing people's happiness just isn't the American way.
FOMO : You're going to miss stuff. It's a way of life. Sitting and thinking about all the things you're missing out on is stagnating your growth. It's impossible to take every opportunity and every trip. If we don't miss out on things we won't know how good it is to actually love the great moments.
Millennials "The Entitlement Generation" : If anything we're entitled to having a voice for a country we have to live with after the lawmakers completely destroy the economy and environment. Millennials if anything they're severely underpaid and undervalued.
"All Lives Matter" This one is the most controversial on the list. For some reason there's a giant group of people out there who immediately hear "all lives don't matter," when they hear the phrase "black lives matter." It's not that all lives don't matter but black lives are the focus here. The fact that this large group of people doesn't see racism is a thing that's alive and well, is actually the problem. If you're not addressing the problem, then you are a part of the problem. Those are probably the same people who don't realize that parents of color have to sit their kids down and have a totally different conversation on how to deal with the police before discussing the birds and the bees.
On the upside, 2016 hasn't been a complete mess. It blessed us with Pokemon Go, Beyonce's "Lemonade" and the Suicide Squad soundtrack. There's nothing but high hopes for the rest of the year because it can only go up from here.


Recently, my 3C students shared jokes with me during lunch time. Therefore I decided look up some funny jokes and share with them in spare time. "1001 More Cool Jokes" is definitely a good book.
The number of jokes found in animals, computers, dinosaurs, doctors and patients, monsters, witches, sport, space, school and many more are amazing! The jokes are categorized into different parts for easy reference. Most of the jokes are short and easy to understand. It is suitable for all young learners to read in leisure time.
My favourite section is "School". There are conversations between teachers and students. They are all commonly found jokes on daily basis. Students make fun of their teachers as they play with the words.
There is a section called "Silly Book Titles". This is quite challenging for the local students as they may not understand the humorous part of how the titles were set. Only the students with a good knowledge of English may find it funny.
These jokes are all collected from all over the world. I am sure you will find some special but funny ones to share with your friends!
A Midsummer's Night Dream is a play that was written in 1595 by William Shakespeare. It is one of his most popular plays and it is my personal favourite.
This is a great story that's very funny and exciting. There are many fun characters, especially Puck, the servant of the fairy king who likes playing tricks on others, and Bottom, a silly man who thinks he's a great actor but who is actually bad at acting. A lot of surprising things happen too: someone becomes a donkey and someone falls in love with the donkey. Students who like reading fantasy books or romantic comedies will also like this book.


Every year in springtime, people driving along highways are greeted with hills and canyons painted in orange, green and violet.
We recently visited the super bloom at Walker Canyon, which lies in between the Cities of Corona and Lake Elsinore.
If you stick to the main trail, you will notice that the first quarter mile is a little steep but it will even out later. The crowds will also thin out the further you go. If you want a longer hike, take a fork to the right, which loops back into Walker Canyon Rd for a total of 5 miles.
Muir Woods is the last remaining grove of Giant Red Wood trees in the bay area and it is located right outside of the city of San Francisco. In 1908 it was declared a national monument and named after the naturist John Muir in recognition of his conservation efforts.


text:
Home Music Kiings + TAMMA – We Know Better | New Music
MMusic
Kiings + TAMMA – We Know Better | New Music
byAndrea Nieto Guerrero
Future bass production duo Kiings and singer TAMMA have teamed up to release an indie/electronic-pop new single titled "We Know Better".
Kiings are a production duo from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who dropped their debut album WWYDF (What Would You Die For) back in 2015. The duet has been gaining recognition over the last years with the likes of A-Trak, Martin Garrix and Girl Talk and now they are back with some electronic pop vibes mixed with a little bit of future bass beats and a small portion of dancehall sounds.
TAMMA make his debut the music scenario last year via Mushroom Publishing, when she launched her first studio single "Beat You Down". The song was added to rotation on HIT Network and labeled as the Buzz track on Ash London's live show. It gained over 500k streams on Spotify and it also featured on Home and Away, a popular Australian TV show.
Following her success with the first single, TAMMA has been working hard to continue on her way to the fame and she has been focusing on trying to connect more with her audience. "I'm so excited to share this E.P. with everyone! It feels a long time coming, but I want it to be right and am enjoying the ride," she said about her upcoming project.
Listen to "We Know Better" down below:
#Peace.Love.Kiings
Kiings
Kiings TAMMA We Know Better
We Know Better
Andrea Nieto Guerrero
Hi! My name is Andrea Nieto. I am a 24-year-old Humanities student from Barcelona who is currently doing an online journalism internship in London. As a person who is very fascinated by human creativity, I love studying art and literature at University and now, I am really enjoying the experience of writing about two of my biggest passions: music and cinema
Irish Rap Duo Tebi Rex Release Debut Album 'The Young Will Eat The Old' | Music News
Wes Anderson Confirms 'The French Dispatch' Cast And Plot | Film News
Linkin Park Share Album Update With Their Fans | Music News
Having recently revealed that they've written a mountain of material for their new album, Linkin Park have…
Festival No.6 Celebrates 50 Years Of 'Sgt. Pepper' Album With 'Sgt. Pepper's Sunday' | Music News
Sundays are often a day of celebrating; Family, Religion, Friends or just a well deserved lie in.…
Jessie J + Ariana Grande + Nicki Minaj – Bang Bang | New Music
What happens when you put three female vocal powerhouses together on one song? "Bang Bang", that's what…
Laura Marling's 'I Feel Your Love' Available To Stream On Spotify | Music News
After a two year gap, Laura Marling's fifth studio album will be released later this month. Following…
George Ezra + First Aid Kit – Saviour | Music Video
byGintarė Lomsargytė
George Ezra shares one more single from his upcoming sophomore album Staying At Tamara's and the accompanying…
Teddy Music + Marcus Beatz – Class A | Music Video
byAda Boas
It is not the first time these two have collaborated on a song together that was absolute…


Description Arrows - a ministry to middle school students in Grade 6-8. Happens three times a month on Wednesdays from 7 pm to 8:30 pm.
Each registered family will receive an email with detailed information about the Arrows ministry by the end of the first week in September.


This is one activity which every child enjoys doing especially if it is for their parents, grandparents, a best friend or for a sibling. Let the child's imagination run free. A very good way to encourage creativity.


St John: Calendar, History, Tweets, Facts & Activities.
The Feast of St. John the Apostle commemorates his life. He was one Jesus' 12 disciples. He was one of the three disciples, which included Peter and James, who were included in some of the most important events in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, including Jesus' crucifixion and transfiguration.
Traditionally, St John is known as the author of the Gospel of John (one of four gospels in the New Testament), John I, II, and III, and the Revelation of John. However, the authorship of the works is disputed.
When Jesus was dying on the cross, he asked John to take care of his mother (John 19:25-27).
In the Gospel of John, he frequently refers to the most beloved disciple. Some theologians believe he is referring to himself, while others believe the reference is used for the reader to insert himself into the role.
Besides Paul, John was the most prolific writer in the New Testament. His body of work includes 'The Revelation of John' and three epistles.
The Feast Day for St. John the Apostle is held in the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations on December 27, the third day of Christmas. In the Orthodox Church, it is called the Feast of the Holy and Glorious Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, which is held September 26. This feast shouldn't be confused with the Feast of St. John the Baptist, which is held in both faith traditions on June 24.
Read the Gospel of John. It is different than the other three Gospels and was thought to the last written of the four books in the New Testament.
Read the Revelation of John, thought to be written by the apostle. The rich symbolism has been thought to foretell the end of the world, but many biblical scholars believe it was written to offer hope to Christians persecuted by Rome.
St John is the Patron Saint of Turkey. Consider visiting this beautiful country - or take a virtual tour with Google Maps.