« first day (832 days earlier)      last day (2872 days later) » 

12:36 AM
@David Re: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/7422/2873 I haven't read anything from Hughes beyond those 2-3 pages. I wonder if he does have more detail to help; I'll see. P.S. I'm sending this message via the Library since there's not much more room for my comments. ;-) Thanks again.
 
12:54 AM
@David With my comments after yours, I wasn't trying to start arguments, so please forgive me if it seems I was.
@David What does makes sense and explain each of the questions' lack of reconciliation is that fatherhood begins at conception (and then so do motherhood and childhood). That's all I've found that works so far.
 
 
4 hours later…
4:37 AM
@Daи (ping) Are you here now?
 
5:16 AM
@brilliant yes and no :P
what's up?
looks like I missed you
ttyl
 
Ami
5:31 AM
@Daи, it still doesn't look great, but I implemented the linear text view that you described to me last time we spoke
I'd love to get your feedback on this update
 
@Daи Hi Daи! So, can you, please, somehow send me those comments that you have deleted? And do you still believe in what you said in them (that N.T. was written in Aramaic)?
 
 
14 hours later…
7:34 PM
If you have a spare hour and a half, this is a great interview of Malcolm Gladwell. About 30 minutes in the conversation turns to David and Goliath.
 
 
2 hours later…
Ami
10:02 PM
Hi @JonEricson, how have you been?
 
@Ami Pretty good. Stack Exchange hired me on as a Community Manager, for one thing.
It's my twins' first birthday, for another.
How about you?
 
Ami
Congratulations and congratulations!
I've been good
very busy, which is good too
 
@Ami Thanks and thanks. ;-)
 
Ami
Anyway, as a side project I made a website for annotating text which I see as being a more usable alternative to rapgenius
I'm curious to see if this website could be of use to hermeneutics.SE community
@Daи, has given me some really good feedback so far
 
@Ami I looked at it and it looks very useful. It sure looks easier to read than Rap Genius. ;-)
 
Ami
10:06 PM
cool, thanks. So, if you have any feedback for me let know.
@Daи, did you get a chance to see the linear text view?
 
@Ami I should probably play around with it. I haven't even made a login yet.
 
@brilliant I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I didn't believe in that even when I wrote it - I offered it as an anecdotal response
 
@Ami You are using Azure, I see. I gather that's not so expensive.
 
Ami
Correct
I don't have a good intuition about how pricing scales with web-traffic, but that's not something I'm worrying about.
 
@Ami I like the linear view (although I wish I could use SE markup in the annotations, to include linking images to be displayed)
Although it seems it no longer highlights the text when I put it in an annotation
like it did before
oh wait, never mind, it just isn't matching for some reason
@Ami hmm, a bug. It isn't finding stuff I'm trying to annotate
Try to annotate 'I commend unto you' in annotationproj.azurewebsites.net/TextView/Index?textID=67
 
Ami
10:12 PM
I see
good find
 
(I'm trying to populate it with more data to see the linear view in action with lots of annotations)
 
Ami
@Daи Added to the trello
 
@Ami very good, I'll try to remember to check in once that is fixed so I can better see the linear view in action
good job!
 
Ami
Cool. Thanks a lot!
I'll probably have it fixed by tonight, but it's hard to know with these things.
 
I like that all the metadata is hidden by default unless you click on it to see it
that makes it much nicer to read
@swasheck thx for sharing!
@Ami do you intend to allow users to highlight the text to annotate in a future update?
 
10:30 PM
@Ami what's your base text? are you planning on including other versions? are you pulling from a db or from a web api?
 
@swasheck you can upload any text you want to it
like Rap Genius
it's an annotation system
 
@Daи not sure i understand
 
@swasheck BYOT, bring your own texts
the site is there for you to annotate them
 
no format at all? just upload whatever?
 
@swasheck see this
@Ami is doing something better
 
10:37 PM
ok
if it was indexed and searchable ... now that'd really make me all weak in the knees
 
you you could upload your own writings and annotate them if you wanted
@swasheck he has filtering and sorting for annotations
an example
 
fascinating
@Ami when i'm done with my sql server presentation prep, i may start upload bombing with BHS, LXX, SBLGNT
 
@swasheck he told me that at any moment he may delete all your annotations, it is still in development
so stick to testing right now
in fact, he killed my Romans 16 annotations
still in development
 
i would have too
 
haha nice
 
11:01 PM
@Daи "I offered it as an anecdotal response" - Really?!!! So you were speaking with sarcasm? But I took your words then quite seriously. Plus, I remember I was asking you some questions and you were responding quite seriously, as far as I could tell.
 
@brilliant No, not sarcasm. I am open to the possibility that much of what we have in the Gospels was originally spoken or even transcribed in Aramaic.
 
@Daи Well, anyway, how can I get all those comments back? Can you, please, undelete them or send them to me somehow?
 
@brilliant I'm sorry, please link me to the question so I can find it :/
 
@Daи Okay, just a moment
 
I can send it to your user email account if you want
the one you used to register with SE
 
11:08 PM
@Daи Yes, send it to my user email account.
 
@brilliant will do
 
@Daи Thank you!!!!
 
@brilliant I just checked and the first line in my post is "I'm going to throw an interesting twist into this thread. I do not necessarily agree with this position, I just find it interesting and it is somewhat related to a similar question."
So I'm pretty sure I was as clear as I could be that this does not necessarily reflect my thinking
And the last line in my answer was, "I am aware that this is somewhat of a stretch and the argument and logic behind it is weak, but it is an interesting possibility."
And then in February 2013 I commented, "I am contemplating deleting this answer. It is a crap argument and doesn't answer the question. I just thought it would be an interesting point to consider. Concerning week and Sabbath - it's all context, not number. Number wasn't added until much later, so it's purely speculative. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No."
So I think I gave enough notice :P
 
11:24 PM
@brilliant I just emailed you. Please download the linked answers and comments asap as they have a short shelf life where I put them
And enjoy the article, but don't post it publicly anywhere. It is unpublished
Referring to the attachment from the professor
 
Yes, you are right - you did make it clear. I just forgot it. Sorry. However, I think the point that you threw in was very interesting to me and worth consideration.
okay I am checking it now
 
@brilliant I find it interesting also, I was being genuine. I just think it's highly unlikely.
 
Yes, I've copied all of them and saved them to my computer. Also, thank you very much for the article. I am reading it at the moment.
 
11:42 PM
@brilliant that is a fascinating article (and pretty much only available through direct contact with the professor)
and the advice I got from an esteemed professor at Notre Dame is: "The question of the Aramaic substratum of the New Testament is extremely complex. Much of what is in popular circulation on the topic is unreliable. Matthew Black’s An Aramaic Approach to the Gospel and Acts, though highly technical, is where students of mine start. "
There is a GREAT deal of unreliable information in circulation, especially what you will find on the Internet from Lamsa and others. I would advise you to stick with people who have published with accredited academic presses.
this is a budding early field, and the (largely Nestorian) scholars who currently broadcast their ideas are not published by academic journals for a reason
 
11:57 PM
@Daи - "this is a budding early field" - what does this sentence mean? I am sorry I am not a native English speaker, so at times I stumble upon such things
 
@brilliant it means the field is still young. There is a lot we still don't know.
 

« first day (832 days earlier)      last day (2872 days later) »