User:AugustO

My motivation

“	Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ·καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ. Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου Κύριε Ἰησοῦ.	”
—Rev 22:18-20

---

“	Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.	”
—Abraham Lincoln

---

“	A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.	”
—Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism

---

“	καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, and where it does appear in Greek versions its real meaning is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep." It only has a connotation of speaking when used in a context of verbal communication (as in putting one word with another), which is not the case here.	”
—Andrew Schlafly: Essay:Calming the Storm

3rd Person Singular Indicative Active of λέγω (I say)
Present	λέγει	he says
Aorist	εἶπε(ν)	he said
Future	ἐρεῖ	he will say
Perfect	εἴρηκε	he has said
Imperfect	ἔλεγε	he used to say
Pluperfect	ᾐρήκει	he had said

---

“	οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one." The ESV admits this, but then translates it as something else!	”
—Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2015 (EST)

It is not only that Andy Schlafly's mistake is so grotesque (he tries to attribute a femine accusative adjective to a masculine nominative pronoun) - the claim that the editors of the "English Standard Version" admit to commit the same atrocity, but then somehow cover it up, is ludicrous (Hint: they just use the standard translation of the demonstrative pronoun)

---

Why is Andrew Schlafly's insight more reliable than the Gospel of Mark?

“	Mark wasn't there. Jesus did not speak aloud to a storm.	”
—Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2016 (EST)

---

“	There were no monarchies at the time of Christ	”
— Andy Schlafly, 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

“	Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory.	”
—Andy Schlafly, WHL4: Birth of the Roman Empire

---

From Calming of the Storm - eight month later:

Andy, it took you eight months to delete the factually false statement But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above from your Essay:Calming the Storm. Now I have given you another eight months to acknowledge that according to Mark, Jesus spoke to the storm aloud. But I understand that you were very preoccupied with the election: It is very unfortunate that your mother wasn't able to see Trump's ultimate triumph to which she had contributed so much - I want to express my belate condolences for your loss.

1) If you view Mark 4:39 (καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη.) in isolation, you may be allowed to try various, even anachronistic meanings of λέγω. But your proposals ("lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep") don't work grammatically. Confer the Iliad, 14th book, verse 252 where Homer uses λέγω in this sense:

[...]ἐγὼ μὲν ἔλεξα Διὸς νόον[...] (I, indeed, laid to rest the mind of Zeus)

Here, you see, that λέγω in the sense of laying is a transitive verb and requires an accusative (νόον), while in Mark 4:39 you have a dative object (τῇ θαλάσσῃ). For short, your preferred meaning cannot be reconciled with the actual grammar.

2) If you view Mark 4:39 in context of the Gospel of Mark - and even the New Testament - it becomes clear that the only feasible translation of this verse is something like " [...]He said to the sea: "Silence, be still"): Mark uses the verb λέγω in 190 of his 678 verses, most often as the sequence

[form of λέγω][addressed person as dative object][direct speech]

You can see this e.g. in Mark 4:38-41:

₃₈καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων· καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; ₃₉καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. ₄₀καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν; ₄₁καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;

Here, in this short section, Mark uses the same construction four times (out of 190...). Do you really think that one time he just wants to express the opposite meaning to the other three times?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. --AugustO (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2016 (EST)

---

AugustO's proof by contradiction that π does not contain π

π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5... "finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0. What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3 That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3. What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n. Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational. We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.

Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction" that π contains π
π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.141592653....)
That's your base case: as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the induction step:
assume π contains π as n significant digits in a finite representation of π
again, your induction hypothesis is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length n", but let's not quibble.
π must also contain π as n+1 significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to infinity
What? Why should this be true? Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a normal number! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable finite length - not of infinite length. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
Q.E.D.
Yeah, that's funny.