Chronicles from the Future - En fantastisk historie, der trodser logisk forklaring

Chronicles from the Future - En fantastisk historie, der trodser logisk forklaring

Chronicles from the Future fortæller en bemærkelsesværdig historie om en bizar og utrolig begivenhed oplevet af Paul Amadeus Dienach, forfatteren, der levede i begyndelsen af ​​det foregående århundrede i Centraleuropa. Dienach hævder, at hans bevidsthed rejste til fremtiden i en anden krop i løbet af hans etårige koma-tilstand, forårsaget af en alvorlig sygdom, og blev der i hele hans koma. Selvom dette lyder umuligt og faktisk fantasifuldt, blev Dienachs skriftlige redegørelse taget meget alvorligt af frimurerne, der holdt sin bog som en tæt bevogtet hemmelighed.

  • Læs senere

Måske vil fremtidige generationer være i orden

I sin nye bog hævder den juridiske forsker Cass R. Sunstein, at der kan være grunde til ikke at bekymre sig om det hinsidige. Foto: Katrin Ray Shumakov/Getty Images

Cass R. Sunstein er en af ​​Amerikas fremmeste juridiske forskere, han er også en stor fan af science fiction -forfattere som Isaac Asimov og Arthur C. Clarke. Sunstein mener, at science fiction kan være et nyttigt værktøj til at inokulere mennesker mod status quo bias & mdashour tendens til at modstå noget nyt og ukendt.

Hvis du elsker science fiction, finder du det sjovt, og måske går en god lille kulde ned ad ryggen, når du tænker på ting, der ikke havde været drømt om før 1990 eller 2005, og disse ting ophidser dig, såvel som måske skræmme dig, ” Sunstein siger i afsnit 468 af Nørdens guide til galaksen podcast.

Podcast

Sunstein ’s nye bog Afværge katastrofe fastlægger en tilgang til evaluering af uforudsigelige trusler som asteroider, AI, klimaændringer og pandemier. En af bogens mere videnskabelige fiktive ideer er, at folk måske ikke behøver at bekymre sig så meget om fremtidige generationers trivsel, en idé, som Sunstein tilskriver den nobelprisvindende økonom Thomas Schelling.

Der er mange mennesker, der opfordrer til, at vi gør ting for at beskytte fremtidige generationer mod, hvad vi kommer til at påføre dem, siger Sunstein. Og#8220Og Schelling siger, vær forsigtig med det, for kommende generationer kommer til at være meget rigere og bedre stillet, end vi har & mdashif -historien er en vejledning & mdashand, hvis vi ofrer vores ressourcer for at hjælpe dem, vil vi omfordele fra fattige os til at rige dem, og hvor er fairness i det? ”

Faktisk kan det faktisk være kontraproduktivt at investere for meget tid og energi i at beskytte fremtidige generationer, hvis disse foranstaltninger ender med at dæmpe den økonomiske vækst. Det faktum, at vi har det så godt, som vi har det nu, er, fordi tidligere generationer gjorde mange ting, der gjorde dem sundere, der gjorde dem rigere, der gjorde dem bedre på utallige måder, frem for at tænke, ‘Lad &# 8217'erne dæmper innovation og udvikling for at beskytte fremtiden, siger Sunstein. Så du kan tilføje til Schellings punkt, at fremtiden & mdashif fortiden er prolog, og folk kommer til at have det bedre end vi er & mdashyou kan tilføje, at fremtiden er afhængig af, at vi laver mange innovative, kreative ting og ikke bekymrer sig så meget om dem. ”

Men at indse, at fremtidige generationer sandsynligvis vil være klogere og rigere, end vi er, burde ikke give os carte blanche til at tage handlinger, som selv en klogere, rigere civilisation næsten vil være umulig at vende. Vi bør ikke tage Schellings argumenter for at foreslå, at vi bør devaluere truede arter eller uberørte områder, ” Sunstein siger. Ideen om at bevare dyrebare ting til fremtidige generationer, det er en god idé. Og hvis de er rigere, men de ikke har ulve og coyoter og bjørne, er de i den grad markant fattigere, selvom de har masser af penge. ”

Lyt til det fulde interview med Cass R. Sunstein i afsnit 468 af Nørdens guide til galaksen (over). Og tjek nogle højdepunkter fra diskussionen herunder.

Cass R. Sunstein på Vågen:

Showet handler om en person, der mister enten sin kone eller sin søn efter en bilulykke, og du kan ikke fortælle det. Halvdelen af ​​tiden konen lever og sønnen er død, og halvdelen af ​​tiden sønnen lever og konen er død. Det er to forskellige virkeligheder, han lever i, og han kan ikke finde ud af, hvilken der er ægte, og det kan seeren heller ikke. Og parallellerne og diskontinuiteterne mellem de to virkeligheder er utrolig fascinerende. … Ideen om parallelle verdener er noget, jeg synes er spændende. Jeg kan virkelig godt lide forfatteren Robert Charles Wilson, fordi han gør store ting med det. Så det er i min gyde. Du kan have et dårligt show om dette emne, men [Vågen] er off-the-charts god. ”

“Med Star wars book tour, jeg havde ingen forventning om, at andre end Star Wars -entusiaster og mdashif, jeg var heldig & mdash ville dukke op, men i stedet var det, jeg fandt ud af, at folk på turen var som brødre og søstre for mig, i den forstand, at der var en umiddelbar følelse af tillid og vilje til at være ægte, frem for at være et publikum. Og så talte de om noget, der skete i deres liv, som om et barn var blevet meget syg, og så snart barnet var i stand til at gå ud af hospitalet, tog faderen barnet til Star wars. I så meget af livet er vores forbindelser med hinanden en centimeter dybe, og det er bedre end ingenting, men på min Star Wars -tur følte jeg, at vi alle på en eller anden måde var familie. ”


En introduktion til første og anden krønike

2. The Targum starter

B. Den græske titel er PARALEIPOMENWN A ’, B ’ [The Books] of Things Left Out

1. Denne titel identificerer det faktum, at Chronicles mange steder supplerer historien i Samuel og Kings

2. Ikke desto mindre er navnet vildledende:

en. Chronicles gentager også meget af materialet i Samuel og Kings

b. Navnet bemærker ikke, at Chronicles ejer et positivt formål, som har besluttet hans valg og arrangement af materiale, der skal medtages i disse bøger 1

C. Den engelske titel er First and Second Chronicles:

1. Jerome noterede sig det enorme omfang af disse bøger (som med Targum ovenfor) og udtalte således i sin prolog til bøgerne Samuel og Kings, at vi måske mere betegner det som chronikon af hele den hellige historie. ’

2. Selvom Jerome brugte den græske titel til bøgerne, påvirkede hans forslag Luther og blev dermed titlen på de bøger, der bruges på engelsk i dag 2

D. Man bør ikke forveksle henvisningerne til “Chronicles ” nævnt i Kongebøgerne med Krønikebogen

1. Både konger og krøniker trak fra tidligere hofkronik 3 (se nedenfor)

2. Domstolsskrivere producerede sandsynligvis et antal ruller, der registrerede de daglige begivenheder i hver monark ’s regel (Est. 2:23 6: 1 10: 2)

II. FORFATTER: Enten Ezra Skriveren eller en ukendt levitskriver

A. Teknisk set er bogen anonym-ingen forfatter eller kompilator er navngivet

B. En ukendt kroniker, der var præst eller levit på grund af forfatterens interesse for templet 4

1. Den jødiske babylonske Talmud identificerer Ezra skriveren som forfatteren, der skrev krønikernes slægtsforskning til sig selv og#8221 eller ned til sin egen tid 5

2. Beskrivelsen af ​​dekretet af Kyros i II.36: 22 understøtter en tid tæt på Ezras tid-i hvert fald ikke meget før hans tid

3. Slægtsbogen i I.3: 19-24 sporer Zerubbabels efterkommere til sjette generation. Hvis Zerubbabel kan dateres til 520 f.Kr. dette ville resultere i en dato på 400 f.Kr. for den seneste efterkommer af Zerubbabel (tæller 20 år for hver generation). Det ville kræve, at bogen var blevet skrevet c. 400 f.Kr. hvilket ville gøre det rimeligt kompatibelt med Ezra skriveren 6

4. Ligheder mellem litterære og sproglige træk i Ezra-Nehemiah og Chronicles foreslår en enkelt forfatter (Ezra) til disse værker 7

III. DATO: 450-400 f.Kr.

A. Nogle identificerer datoen for Chronicles for at have været i midten af ​​det fjerde århundrede f.Kr. på grund af stil, ordforråd og slægtsforskning 8

B. Den tidligst mulige dato for bogen er 538 f.Kr. da Persien blev etableret over Babylon og Kyros udstedte dekret for jøderne om at vende tilbage til Jerusalem og bygge templet (2 Krøn. 36: 20-23)

C. Den sidste mulige dato for bogen er midten af ​​andet århundrede f.Kr. med den tekstmæssige attest på eksistensen af ​​LXX of Chronicles af Eupolemos 9

D. De fleste konservative forskere daterer bogen mellem 450-400 f.Kr. 10

1. Krønikebog 3: 1-24 lister David ’s efterkommere til ottende generation efter Jojakim (3: 16-24), dette kunne muliggøre 400 f.Kr. dato:

en. Jehoiakim var 18 år gammel i 597 f.Kr. da han blev taget til fange af babylonierne (2 Kongebog 24:18)

b. Gennemsnitligt 25 år gange otte generationer ville give 200 år

c. Dette placerer den tidligste dato omkring 400 f.Kr.

2. Krønikebog 3: 17-24 er muligvis ikke en lige nedstigningslinje fra Johochin gennem Anani-nogle af de nævnte personer kan være samtidige og ikke på hinanden følgende 11

en. Jehoiakim var 18 år gammel i 597 f.Kr. da han blev taget til fange af babylonierne (2 Kongebog 24:18)

b. Dette ville gøre i mindst fem generationer

c. Gennemsnitligt 25 år gange fem generationer ville give 125 år

d. Dette placerer den tidligste dato i midten af ​​det femte århundrede f.Kr.

3. Spørgsmålet omkring omtalen af ​​penge i “darik ” i Davids tid i 1 Krønikebog 19: 7 kræver ikke nødvendigvis en tidlig dato for Krønikerne for at være anakronistisk, da “daric ” ikke behøver at være en reference til Darius I (c. 520-486) ​​12

IV. KANONICITET:

1. Oprindeligt var de en rulle 13

2. Den græske LXX opdelte først materialet i to bøger c. 200 f.Kr. 14

3. Den første hebraiske opdeling af materialet i to bøger var først i 1448 e.Kr. 15

1. I de græske og engelske OT -kanoner er bøgerne i Chronicles PARALEIPOMENWN A ’, B ’ “ [The Books] of Things Left Out) ” placeret blandt de historiske bøger, der følger efter Kings books (BASILEIWN A & #8217 - D ’)

2. Selv Ezras bog kan have haft en original enhed med Chronicles, den er placeret efter Chronicles i både LXX og vores engelske kanoner 16

3. Da den græske Canon udvidede sig med inkluderingen af ​​apokryfe bøger, adskilte det Krønikebog og Ezra med inkluderingen af ​​I Esdras. 17

1. På et udokumenteret tidspunkt før det fjerde århundrede e.Kr. udgjorde rabbinske myndigheder en tredje division af kanonen kaldet “ The Writings ” sandsynligvis af liturgiske årsager ved:

en. kombinerer de tidligere og sidstnævnte profeter

b. overførsel af nogle af de tidligere profeter (Krønikebog), nogle af de kortere ruller og en sidstnævnte profet (Daniel) til en enkelt gruppe

2. Derfor står Chronicles nu for enden af ​​den hebraiske Canon (& ltymyh yrbd “Eventes of the Days ”, derfor “Annals ”) 18

V. BRUGTE KILDER 19

1. Bogen om Kongerigene (eller Kongerne) i Juda og Israel (eller om Israel og Juda) 21

2. Historien (midrash) i Kongernes Bog 22

3. Ussias ord sammensat af profeten Esajas

4. Ordene fra Shemaiah, profeten fra Iddo seeren

5. Profeten Iddos midrash

6. Ordene fra Jehu, Hananis søn

C. Forfatteren brugte sine kilder med en bevidst forståelse og design 23

VI. TAL I KRONIKER, DER ER UENIGT MED DERES ANDRE PARALLELLER: 24

300 dræbt af Jashobeam, ikke 800

Hadadezer ’s 1.000 vogne og 7.000 ryttere, ikke 1.000 og 700 ryttere

7.000 syriske vogne dræbt, ikke 700

og 40.000 fodsoldater, ikke ryttere

Israel ’s 1.100.000 tropper, ikke 800.000

Juda ’s 470.000 tropper, ikke 500.000

Tre års hungersnød, ikke syv

Ornan betalte 600 guldsekler, ikke 50 sølv

3.600 til at føre tilsyn med templets konstruktion, ikke 3.300

Forskellig opgørelsesmetode

20.000 bade olie til Hiram ’s woodman, ikke 20 kors (= 200 bade)

Tempelsøjler 35 alen, ikke 18

Hav med 3.000 bade, ikke 2.000

250 chefofficerer for at bygge templet, ikke 550

Forskellig opgørelsesmetode

450 guldtalenter fra Ophir, ikke 420

300 guldbekas pr. Skjold, ikke 3 minas

Forskellig opgørelsesmetode

4.000 boder til heste, ikke 40.000

Ahazja konge på 42 år, ikke 22

Jehoiachin konge på 8, ikke 18

Sammenlignet med dens paralleller er Chronicles den samme én gang, højere 10 gange og lavere 7 gange.

Samlede uenigheder 19 (j gentager i) ud af 213 parallelle tal

VII. FORMÅL TIL KRONIKERNE

A. At vidne om “ Guds enhed ’s vilje for hans folk. ” 25

B. At vidne om “ kontinuiteten i det lydige svar inden for Israels historie. ” 26

C. At vidne om den grundlæggende overensstemmelse mellem en handling og dens resultat. ” 27

D. At give jøderne i det andet rigsfællesskab det sande åndelige grundlag for deres teokrati som Jehovas pagtsfolk ” 28

E. At vidne om det hellige skrifts rolle som værende den trosregel, som samfundet lever efter. ” 29

F. At fortolke det restaurerede samfund i Jerusalem Israels historie som en evig pagt mellem Gud og David, som krævede et lydigt svar på den guddommelige lov. ” 30

G. At afsløre Guds ønske om at velsigne dem, der helhjertet tilbeder ham og forbande dem, der modstår ham i oprør i henhold til det mosaiske system for tempeldyrkelse 31

1 Williamson skriver, kan det siges, at denne misvisende indflydelse i LXX og V på den kristne kirke har bidraget væsentligt til undervurderingen og deraf følgende forsømmelse af disse bøger indtil forholdsvis nyere tid (H. G. M. Williamson, 1 og 2 Krønikebog, 4).

Merrill skriver, The Books of 1 and 2 Chronicles giver det eneste eksempel fra Det Gamle Testamente på et 'synoptisk problem', da de i vid udstrækning er parallelle med indholdet af Samuel og Kings. Det vil sige, at de fortæller Israels historie og teologi fra et lidt andet perspektiv end Samuel og Kings. På samme måde betragter Evangelierne i Mattæus, Markus og Lukas Jesu liv og lære på lignende, men på ingen måde identiske måder. Studerende i Det Gamle Testamente er undertiden forvirrede over denne gentagne, men alternative tilgang til Guds åbenbaring. Hvorfor spørges det, skal der være to versioner af det samme sæt omstændigheder og begivenheder?

Den samme slags spørgsmål er blevet stillet i forhold til evangelierne. Det mest tilfredsstillende evangeliske svar har været, at hver evangelieforfatter var et unikt individ, der var vidne personligt og på anden måde kom til at forstå Jesu liv og budskab på en unik måde. Desuden fortalte hver enkelt om traditionen, da Guds ånd tilskyndede og korrigerede ham. Således er citaterne fra Jesu ord forskellige fra evangelium til evangelium, og rækkefølgen af ​​begivenheder varierer ligeledes efter interesser, fremhævninger og litterære strukturer, der er særegne for hver forfatter. Denne frihed til litterær kreativitet inden for grænserne for guddommelig overvågning forstås godt og accepteres af dem, der har engageret sig i seriøs undersøgelse af evangelierne.

Omhyggelig læsning af Samuel-Kings og of Chronicles afslører de samme fremgangsmåder og processer. Selvom de to respektive beretninger stort set omhandler det samme væsentlige emne, varierer de i deres betoning, hvad de inkluderer eller udelukker og i deres teologiske interesser. Og alligevel, ligesom ærbødige evangelieundersøgelser har vist, at der ikke er nogen påviselig grund til modsigelse blandt dem, så viser Samuel-Kings og Chronicles ingen uløselige disharmonier. Den fremlæggelse, der skal følges, vil gøre dette klart.

At se Chronicles som synoptisk for Samuel-Kings er ikke at benægte dets uafhængige betydning og betydning, for det er i netop disse områder af dens aktuelle, tematiske og teologiske forskelle, at dens begrundelse ligger. Dens forfattere og kompilatorer var følsomme over for, at Helligånden ønskede at bruge dem til at kommunikere åbenbaringens sandhed på måder, der parallellerede budskabet fra Sammuel-Kings fra et andet perspektiv og med forskellige mål. Således er ingen undersøgelse af Det Gamle Testamente fuldstændig, der afviser Chronicles som en ren gentagelse af Samuel-Kings og ikke ser det for hvad det er-en frisk, alternativ måde at se på Guds handlinger med sit folk i Det Gamle Testamentes tid (Eugene H. Merrill, 1, 2 Krønikebog: Bibelstudiekommentar, 9-10).

57,8% af Krønikebøgerne er unikke i Det Gamle Testamentes litteratur (J. B. Pyne, The Validity of the Numbers in Chronicles, Bibliotheca Sacra, 136 (1979): 111. Donald Holdridge skriver, Bortset fra Solomon skriver Kronikeren 8,5 vers mere om hver konge i Judæa end forfatteren af ​​'Kings' (Donald Wesley Holdridge, The Argument of 2 Chronicles, papir indsendt til kursus 327 Seminar i gammeltestamentlig historisk litteratur. Dallas Theological Seminary, foråret 1989, 21 n. 6).

Johnson skriver, Evaluering er pointen i fortællingshistorien. Forfatteren af ​​Chronicles er en forfatter i betydningen en historiker. Kontinuitet og selektivitet er de to overvejelser for en historiker. Kontinuitet er nødvendig på grund af historiens indbyrdes sammenhæng. Hver begivenhed har et bestemt forhold til andre-som en tråd i et stof-og kan ikke forstås isoleret. Selektivitet er obligatorisk, fordi ingen kunne registrere alt, hvad der skete i en given æra. Historikeren peger derfor ud og fremhæver, hvad der er væsentligt. En begivenhed er vigtig, fordi den udtrykker hans vurdering af perioden. En begivenhed måles som værdifuld, når den udtrykker helhjertet tilbedelse og er farlig, når den indebærer at vende sig bort og forlade Gud. En værdsat begivenhed afspejler, hvad der var behageligt for YHWH dengang, og hvad der nu glæder YHWH i det nyligt opførte tempel. Det, der var farligt, bærer alle advarselsmærker for gentagelse af det samme svar til Gud. Dette var kriteriet for udvælgelse. Kriterierne for kontinuitet involverede etableringen af ​​det Davidisk medierede kongerige og de faktorer, der relaterede til dets fortsættelse (Elliott E. Johnson, Synopsis and Selective Analysis of 1 and 2 Chronicles [upublicerede klasse notater i 327 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature, Dallas Theological Seminary , Forår 1989], 2-3).

2 Se H. G. M. Williamson, 1 og 2 Krønikebog, 3-4.

3 Se R. K. Harrison, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente: Med en omfattende gennemgang af Det Gamle Testamentes studier og et særligt tillæg om apokryferne, 1160.

4 Andrew E. Hill og John H. Walton, En undersøgelse af Det Gamle Testamente, 217 Se R. K. Harrison, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente: Med en omfattende gennemgang af Det Gamle Testamentes studier og et særligt supplement om apokryferne, 1157 Eugene H. Merrill, 1, 2 Krønikebog, 12.

5 Baba Bathra 15a. Archer skriver: Det er ganske muligt, at den talmudiske tradition (Baba Bathra, 15a) er korrekt i tildelingen af ​​forfatterskabet til Ezra. Som hovedarkitekten for den spirituelle og moralske genoplivning af det andet rigsfællesskab ville han have haft alt incitament til at lave en historisk undersøgelse af denne slags. Som levit fra præstelinjen ville hans synspunkt have været fuldstændig i overensstemmelse med forfatteren til dette værk, og han ville være meget tilbøjelig til at lægge belastningen lige der, hvor kronikeren har. Det er relevant at bemærke, at der i 2 Makkabæerne 2: 13-15 var en tradition om, at guvernør Nehemias ejede et betydeligt bibliotek: 'Han grundlagde et bibliotek og samlede bøgerne om konger og profeter og bøgerne om David og kongernes breve om hellige gaver. ' Hvis Nehemias havde en så stor samling af opslagsværker, kunne det meget vel være, at hans nære samarbejdspartner, Ezra, havde haft klar adgang til disse opslagsværker og brugt dem i udarbejdelsen af ​​Chronicles (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 413).

Ikke desto mindre skriver Merrill, Desuden er der intet i Baba Bathra erklæring, der siger, at Chronicles blev fuldført af Ezra, men kun at han 'skrev kronikken om sig selv' (15a). Dette efterlader plads til slægtsregistre ud over hans egen tid, og det kan naturligvis kun tænkes at sige, at Ezra bidrog til slægtsforskning og til intet andet (Eugene H. Merrill, 1, 2 Krønikebog, 12).

6 Se R. K. Harrison, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente: Med en omfattende gennemgang af Det Gamle Testamentes studier og et særligt supplement om apokryferne, 1153, 1156-57.

7 R. K. Harrison, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente: Med en omfattende gennemgang af Det Gamle Testamentes studier og et særligt supplement om apokryferne, 1153 William. F. Albright, Kronikerens dato og personlighed, Tidsskrift for bibelsk litteratur 40 (1921): 104-119. Bemærk også, at 2 Krønikebog 36: 22-23 gentages som åbningsversene i Ezra 1: 1-3a.

Harrison (og andre som Newsome, Hill & amp; Walton og Samir B. Massouh i J. Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles, i Ekspositorens bibelkommentar, 4: 306-307) argumenterer imod netop dette punkt senere, da han skriver, Forsøg på at identificere Kronikeren med Ezra virker utilrådelige på grund af betydelige forskelle i stil, historisk og teologisk perspektiv, behandling af kildemateriale og historiens grundlæggende metafysik som udstillet i de to kompositioner (RK Harrison, 1157). Disse indvendinger er imidlertid ikke afgørende, da Chronicles ser ud til at være en helt anden genre end Ezra-Nehemias. Derfor er stil og behandling af materiale ikke afgørende for forfatteren her mere end det ville være for Luke som forfatteren af ​​evangeliet og derefter Apostlenes Gerninger. Genre kan bestemme litterære valg. Derudover kan forfatterens formål være så afgørende for, hvad der er inkluderet, og hvad der er udelukket som begrebet en anden forfatter.

8 R. K. Harrison, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente, 1154 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 og 2 Krønikebog, 15-16. For en oversigt over positioner se Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 413-14.

Disse indvendinger er imidlertid ikke afgørende, da Chronicles ser ud til at være en helt anden genre end Ezra-Nehemias. Derfor er stil og behandling af materiale ikke afgørende for forfatteren her mere end det ville være for Luke som forfatteren af ​​evangeliet og derefter Apostlenes Gerninger. Genre kan bestemme litterære valg.

9 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 og 2 Krønikebog, 15. Payne bemærker imidlertid, at dette faktisk er forældet nu, da der er fundet en egentlig MS of Chronicles blandt Dødehavsrullerne ved Qumran-hulen fire, hvilket gør en dato fra tredje centret vanskelig at vedligeholde (J. Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles , I Ekspositorens bibelkommentar, 4:305).

10 C. F. Keil, Krønikebøgerne, i Kommentar til Det Gamle Testamente i ti bind, III: 27 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 418 Andrew E. Hill og John H. Walton, En undersøgelse af Det Gamle Testamente, 217 Eugene H. Merrill, 1, 2 Krønikebog, 11-12. Dette gør det muligt for Ezra at være kroniker, men beviser det ikke.

11 Eugene H. Merrill, 1, 2 Krønikebog, 12. Merrill skriver, Kronikeren sporer naturligvis ikke slægtsbøgerne forbi sin egen tid, så yderligere efterkommere af David gennem Zerubbabel (og måske ellers) fortsætter i kun to eller tre generationer mere (3.21-24). Hananiah, en søn af Zerubbabel, har kun en generation i sin rækkefølge. Derefter følger der fire familier, hvis forbindelse ikke er angivet, hvor den sidste af disse strækker sig gennem fem generationer-Shecanian, Shemaiah, Neariah, Elioenai og Anani. Hvis Shecaniah var samtid med Hananiah, Zerubbabels søn (hvilket virker rimeligt), ville fem generationer inklusive placere datoen for Anani, den sidst navngivne, omkring 425 f.Kr., en almindeligt accepteret dato for Chronicles (Ibid., 28).

12 Archer skriver, Samtidig må det indrømmes, at darics havde været i omløb i mange årtier før Ezras tid, og der ville ikke være nogen vanskelighed ved at omtale dem som en aktuel bytteenhed. Da daric repræsenterede en velkendt vægt i guld, er der ingen særlig grund til, at Ezra ikke kunne have beregnet den mængde guldbarre, som de israelitiske fyrster rent faktisk bidrog til for at tjene templet og derefter have konverteret summen til et tilsvarende antal darics som mere meningsfulde for offentligheden i Ezras egen generation (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 415). Se også R. K. Harrison, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente: Med en omfattende gennemgang af Det Gamle Testamentes studier og et særligt supplement om apokryferne, 1157.

13 En masoretisk betegnelse i slutningen af ​​et manuskript af Krønikebog bemærkede midten af ​​bogen som værende 1 Krønikebog 27:25 (ZPEB s.v. Chronicles, Books of, af S. J. Schultz, I: 809.

14 Dette blev sandsynligvis gjort på grund af bøgernes længde. De ville dele bøgerne ved død af en nøglefigur, som var David her.

16 Se Josephus, Mod Apion I.38 [8] for den tidligste beskrivelse. Payne skriver, Desuden viser den ufuldstændighed af formen, som Kyros dekret fremstår med-afbrydes midt i kongens dekret-ved udgangen af ​​2 Krønikebog, og som Ezra åbner, at Krønikerne blev føjet til kanonen efter Ezra var der allerede.

En plausibel forklaring er som følger: da Gud i 450 inspirerede Ezra i 450 til at skrive den samlede mængde, inspirerede han ham også til at placere den sidste del af den (= Ezra) i OT -kanonen, som den guddommeligt autoriserede efterfølger til den historiske optegnelse af Kings . Først efterfølgende, måske ved kanonens endelige opsamling kort før 420, førte Gud ham til at indsætte resten (= Chron) som supplerende paralleller til materialerne i Samuel og Kings (J. Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles, In Ekspositorens bibelkommentar, 4:312).

Optagelsen af ​​Chronicles with Ezra i LXX understøtter en kanonisering af bøgerne fra mindst midten af ​​det andet århundrede f.Kr.

17 Esdras B = vores Ezra-Nehemias. Meyers skriver, Chronicles, Esdras A, Esdras B (vores Ezra-Nehemiah). Det var den rækkefølge, der blev fulgt af St. Jerome og Luther, og derfor i vores engelske bibler, bortset fra at Esdras A (apokryfe Ezra) er blevet henvist til den apokryfe, mens Esdras B fremstår som Ezra og Nehemiah (Jacob M. Meyers, I Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, XVII).

18 Payne skriver, men selvom Chronicles som et resultat nu står for enden af ​​trykte hebraiske bibler, er det engelske (og græske) arrangement det, der svarer til kanonens rækkefølge i NT Times. For i Mattæus 23:35 talte Kristus om alle martyrerne fra Abel i den første bog (Gen) ned til den sidste martyrede mindre profet (Zakarias, der blev 'dræbt i helligdommen', Malaki vides ikke at have lidt martyrium) (J . Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles, In Ekspositorens bibelkommentar, 4:312).

19 Hill og Walton følger Payne og opdeler kategorierne af kilder i (1) genealogiske optegnelser, (2) breve og officielle dokumenter, (3) digte, bønner, taler og sange, (4) andre historier, (5) profetiske skrifter og (6) kanoniske kilder (Andrew E. Hill og John H. Walton, En undersøgelse af Det Gamle Testamente, 217-18 jf. J. Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles, In Ekspositorens bibelkommentar, 4:309-11).

20 Archer skriver: Det er meget omstridt, om kronikeren faktisk kopierede fra Samuel og Kings, de fleste myndigheder antager, at han gjorde det (jf. Ny bibelkommentar). Andre, som Zoeckler (i Lange's Kommentar, s. 18-20) og E.J. Young (IOT, s. 384-85), mener, at han kopierede fra almindelige tidligere kilder, men at forskelle i detaljer og arrangement udelukker muligheden for direkte lån (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 415).

21 Archer skriver, at disse kan være de samme som Israels kongers bog og Israels kongers ord (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 415).

22 skriver Archer (som måske er forskellig fra den tidligere nævnte) (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 415).

23 Childs skriver: Hvad kan man sige om forfatterens egen forståelse af sine kilder? Først og fremmest er det klart, at kronikeren foretager et udvalg af materiale fra en meget større kilde, som er tilgængelig for ham. Således overgår han for eksempel i stilhed hele Nordrigets historie efter nationens splittelse og bruger det kun, når det har en direkte betydning for Juda (II Krøn. 18). Det er imidlertid en grundlæggende fortolkningsfejl at udlede af denne udvælgelsesmetode, at kronikerens formål ligger i at undertrykke eller erstatte den tidligere tradition med sin egen beretning. To grunde taler direkte imod denne antagelse. For det første antager Kronikeren ofte et kendskab til hele traditionen fra sine læsere i en sådan grad, at hans beretning er praktisk talt uforståelig uden det underforståede forhold til de andre beretninger (jf. I Krøn. 12.19ff. II Krøn. 32.24- 33). For det andet, selv når han udelader en historie i sit udvalg, henviser han ofte eksplicit til den ved sin brug af kilder. F.eks. Udelader Kronikeren henvisning til Jeroboams guddommelige valg (1. Kongebog 11), men hans eksplicitte henvisning til Ahijas profeti (II Kr. 9.29) udelukker en teori om bevidst undertrykkelse. Så igen, kronikerens hyppige metode til at gentage store dele af tidligere materiale, som han leverer en teologisk forklaring på årsagerne til, indikerer, at forfatteren ikke kun ser et værk som et supplement, men som en nødvendig forklaring af traditionen (Brevard S. Childs, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente som Skrift, 646-47).

24 J. Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles, In Ekspositorens bibelkommentar, 4: 561 jf. også Andrew E. Hill og John H. Walton, En undersøgelse af Det Gamle Testamente, 220.

25 Brevard S. Childs, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente som Skrift, 654. Dette punkt er ofte gået tabt i den moderne bekymring over spørgsmålet om historicitet. Childs skriver, Forfatteren relativiserer alle spørgsmål om historisk forandring og udvikling og behandler Guds vilje for sit folk som evig og uforanderlig. Guds ord henvendte sig til gamle patriarker, før eksiliske konger og landflygtige fra det babylonske fangenskab med de samme imperativer og ledsagede dem med det samme løfte. Med andre ord taler Kronikeren til det ontologiske spørgsmål og vidner trofast om den ene Guds uforanderlige virkelighed (Ibid., 654-55).

26 Brevard S. Childs, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente som Skrift, 655. Childs skriver, Fordi Gud ikke ændrede sin vilje, idet han krævede en ting af sit folk tidligere og noget andet senere, opstod der en fælles profil for de troende i Israel. Der er en familielighed i deres ros og taksigelse, i bønner og sørgeligheder, der strækker sig over alle aldre. Kronikeren formede sit materiale for at fremhæve kontinuiteten inden for trossamfundet (Ibid.).

27 Brevard S. Childs, Introduktion til Det Gamle Testamente som Skrift, 655.

28 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., En undersøgelse af det gamle testamentes introduktion, 412. Fortsat skriver han, Historikerens formål er at vise, at den hebraiske nations sande ære blev fundet i dets pagtsforhold til Gud, som er beskyttet af de foreskrevne former for tilbedelse i templet og administreret af det guddommeligt ordinerede præstedømme under beskyttelse af det guddommeligt ordinerede dynasti af David. Always the emphasis is upon that which is sound and valid in Israel's past as furnishing a reliable basis for the task of reconstruction which lay ahead. Great stress is placed upon the rich heritage of Israel and its unbroken connection with the patriarchal beginnings (hence the prominence accorded to genealogical lists) (Ibid).

Holdridge writes, He stressed the Davidic and Mosaic covenants in the examples of their former kings, so that they would live in hope and obedience to these covenants respectively during the second temple era (Donald Wesley Holdridge, The Argument of 2 Chronicles, paper submitted for course 327 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1989, 15).

Merrill writes, There could hardly have been a more fitting and encouraging message for the post-exilic Jewish community than that of Chronicles. The people had returned, a temple had been rebuilt, and a cultus with its priesthood and other institutions continued. There was no monarchy, to be sure, but the merging of the offices of priest and king along with the prophetic promises of contemporary men of God, such as Haggai (2:4-9) and Zechariah (9:9-10 14:9-21), were reason enough to fill the remnant with hope that the covenant promises of the Lord could not fail and would surely come to pass (Eugene H. Merrill, 1, 2 Chronicles, 14 cf also J. Barton Payne, 1, 2 Chronicles, In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 4:312-14).

29 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 655. Continuing he writes, Far from being a dead hand of the past, the writings of the prophets offer both a chart and a compass for the boldest possible exploration of the inner and out structure of faith within the world and without. The fact that the book of Chronicles does not replace Samuel and Kings, but stands along side the earlier traditions, illustrates the function of the canon as a means of enrichment of the biblical traditions in the process of critical reflection (Ibid.).

30 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 644. Continuing he writes, On the basis of past history he sought repeatedly to draw the lesson that Israel prospered when obedient but courted God's wrath and the destruction of the nation through disobedience. In spite of continual warnings from the prophets, Israel abandoned God's law and suffered the consequences (II Chron. 36.15f.). However, after the judgment, God once again restored his people who continue to stand under the same divine imperatives. The author assumes that the will of God has been made known through revelation. It does not need to be actualized or reinterpreted for a new era. Rather, both the judgments which the writer cites upon disobedience in the past (I Chron. 10.13f II Chron. 12.2 II Chron. 36.15f.) as well as the promises proffered for a faithful response remain authoritative for every generation (II Chron. 6.1ff. 7.11ff. 21.7). Significantly, the term Israel retains for the Chronicler its basically religious connotation of the people of God and does not become simply a political designation (cf. Williamson) (Ibid.).

31 Elliott Johnson writes, The Chronicler's overarching concern is the theocratic character of the community of [the] returned remnant. God's direct activity, the pattern of retribution, scriptural authority, and centrality of the temple are all components in the providential rule of God over his people. The Chronicler longs for and seeks to contribute to a recovery of the glorious days of David and Solomon--not by the reestablishment of the mediatoral rule of God through the monarchy but by a return to obedient worship. To a people stripped of kings (monarchy) and forced to obey Persian law and to submit to Persian government (times of the Gentiles), he writes about the glory days with an implication of hope. God adores and blesses those who worship Him with a pure heart. The book selects events surrounding the Temple (I.6:31, 49, 9:27 17:1 22:6 28:11 II.5:1 7:1 22:12 24:4 29:3 24:1-33 36:7, 22, 23) and features experience worship (I.14:10 14 16:7ff. 17:16ff. 21:17 29:10 II.5:2--7:10 14:11 20:5-12 26:4 30:6 31:2 35:1). For the restored remnant, the clear implication is that God relishes such worship in the restored Temple and purposes to bless these worshippers.

In addition, God's pattern of retribution also implied that the resistant ones in rebellion would be the object of God's covenant curses. This was a remnant surviving in the midst of Gentile nations whose own destiny would relate to their worship. They were linked to the experiences of the Davidic line not because the Davidic heir was recognized but because the same God would be worshipped. The purposes of God toward his people remained unchanged in spite of their change in status from nation to worshipping community (Elliott E. Johnson, Synopsis and Selective Analysis of 1 and 2 Chronicles [unpublished class notes in 327 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1989], 1).

Continuing he writes, Perhaps the dominant theological emphasis of Chronicles is the constant concern for the temple, its worship, and its officials, the Levites. Comparison of the accounts of the inauguration of worship in Jerusalem under David (2 Sam. 6:12-19 1 Chron. 15:1--16:3) or Hezekiah's reform (2 Kings 18:4-7 2 Chron. 29--31) reveals the Chronicler's avid interest in the structure and personnel of Israel's religion. Though he is by no means disinterested in the Hebrew Prophets, (I.21:18 II.15:1 2 18:6 19:2 21:12-15 25:7 28:9 36:21-22) the Levites, who assisted the priests in preparing sacrifices and who served as temple attendants, singers, and gatekeepers are particularly dear to his heart (I.23 24 25 26:2--20:14 23:11 24:20). Little attention is given to these in Kings.

Although his priestly perspective cannot be doubted, one need not hold that 'the Chronicler gave the Levites a higher place than they ever actually had' (N. H. Snaith OTMS, 111). The complex history of the relationship between priests and levites brooks no sweeping generalities of any kind. The author of Chronicles simply lingers on those individuals who valued and supported worship. Worship according to the Mosaic order was valued and the preparation of David which established the order for worship received detailed attention. David restored the ark to Jerusalem which is distinctly identified as the throne of God (I.13:6) and prepared a temporary dwelling (I.15:1). In addition, a Psalm (105) written by Asaph whom David commissioned is included in David's worship (I.16:1, 8-36). That narration of David's worship is matched by a narration of Solomon's worship (5:1--7:22). Solomon worships in the completed Temple as YHWH settles in a cloud displayin impenetrable glory in His presence (II.5:13, 14). Then Solomon celebrates the coming of YHWH's glory as a realization of YHWH's promise to David (II.6:1-11). and worships as He petitions YHWH to respond to prayers offered in the Temple (II.6:12-42). YHWH's second appearance to Solomon defines the Mosaic [provisions] as conditional blessing if they humbly pray, then YHWH will forgive (7:14) but if they turn away and forsake His commands to worship other gods, then they will be uprooted from the land (7:19, 20). This pattern of worship or rejection of worship governs the remainder of the Davidic kings (II.36:15 and 18-20) blessing (II.11:16, 17 12:7, 12 15:5 17:3-10 26:5 32:5) and judgment (II.12:1, 2 21:6, 7 22:3, 4 24:18 26:16 32:25 36:9, 12 36:21, 22) (Ibid., 1-2).


Del All sharing options for: Liverpool’s Success This Season Defies Explanation

Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt - AMA/Getty Images

Any teacher worth their salt will tell you that teaching is a great way to learn. By explaining a concept to someone else, you generally gain a better understanding of that topic yourself.

The concept of Jurgen Klopp’s Liverpool, in my very recent and personal experience, is an exception to this rule.

The last several weeks I’ve had family come to visit me (or more accurately the little human that we just created). In each case, often during matches, I tried explaining and contextualizing Liverpool’s achievements from the loss in Kiev onward. I talked about their heartbreaking loss, only to come back and win the thing in Madrid last year. I talked about losing the title by 11mm, and responding with the decision to win all the games. I talked about how even the academy players are stepping up and playing “The Liverpool Way.”

In each case, it occurred to me that these Reds defy explanation.

None of this makes sense, even to a footy fan. It makes even less sense without understanding the weight of Liverpool’s history and the new history this team is creating with each and every win.

It doesn’t make sense. No one—not even the most rose-tinted glasses, optimistic, and biased Liverpool fan—would have thought we would be here, 25 games played, 24 wins, 1 draw, 0 losses. No one would have thought we’d be 22 points clear, with some fans openly pondering whether a treble or invincible, record-breaking season would be better?

It doesn’t make sense that the kids would be charged with continuing Liverpool’s 21-year unbeaten run at Anfield against Everton. It makes even less sense that they pulled it off. And even less sense again that they kept our treble hopes alive—without Klopp or senior players to help—in the very next round.

I can’t explain what Liverpool are accomplishing because I don’t understand it myself. I might as well be explaining quantum mechanics or Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. By attempting to teach another person about quantum mechanics, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, or this Liverpool side, I only expose my own ignorance. I don’t know hvordan it works, I just know at it works. It seems impossible and beyond the capacity of our primitive monkey brains to do or understand. But some great men have understood these concepts and created the end result. So while I cannot understand these things, I can appreciate them.

And for one, brilliant moment, my family got to appreciate it. West Ham won a corner. Liverpool cleared the danger. Jordan Henderson played Mohamed Salah into space. Mo picked out a streaking Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain with a perfect outside-of-the-boot pass. Ox beat his man, stayed on his feet, and made it 2-0.

Jeg ved. Fantastiske. Strålende. Determined. And about a million other adjectives, but somehow none of those words do them justice. I can’t explain it. I’m not sure many others can either. But we can watch them (FA permitting) and enjoy it.

No one knows how long this brilliance will last, and how many pieces of silverware they’ll collect along the way.

This season will almost certainly end with them as English Champions. The long-awaited #19. We might just keep winning the rest of the way in. But equally, it might end with a whimper. Perhaps they go out on away goals to Atletico Madrid. Perhaps their FA Cup run ends at Chelsea. Perhaps they miss out on an unbeaten season and/or a record points tally. In a word, perhaps we’ve peaked (or will do soon).

But what a ride it has been so far. It will come to an end, at some point. The only thing we can do is appreciate it in the moment. To understand that we’re seeing greatness. That we’re seeing accomplishments that we might not see from any side, Liverpool or otherwise, in our lifetimes.

With enough years in the rearview mirror, I might even be able to understand what Jurgen Klopp has accomplished. Though, probably not. All I know is that I can’t wait for the next inexplicable match, and the next record broken that completely defies logic or explanation. Up the inconceivable Reds.


Why does SkyNet apparently have the human flaw of hubris?

Hey guys, Iɽ literally never been to this subreddit before like seven minutes ago. This is probably something you've discussed before. I watched Terminator 1-3 as a teenager and I've been rewatching them recently. I am watching Terminator 2: Judgment Day as I write this (well, technically it's paused).

SkyNet is supposed to be this all-powerful artificial intelligence. In this post-apocalyptic future, it has fully automatic factories and basically no constraints on access to any resources. Furthermore, since it has passed the singularity, it's capable of being smart enough to improve itself and build better technologies.

Why is such a sophisticated computer system, which again can build these amazing cyborgs (T-800, T-1000) so self-confident that it only sends ONE of these things back in time for each mission? Like, I know stuff can't come back (you can travel to past but there is no return trip), but why wouldn't it send like six of them?

And obviously it knows the first mission failed because John Connor was born. It sent a T1000 back to kill John later, but it knows that mission failed. As soon as it's done, it would know. That's what's so confusing about the time travel aspect. So why doesn't it just keep sending robots until something changes?

The only logical explanation for only sending one unit is hubris, and I can't imagine that an AI would be capable of hubris.

Is this addressed in the books at all? I didn't even know there were books until today.


The Vishnu Chronicles : The Hunt For Rama's Bow

Just finished reading #TheHuntForRamasBow and I loved it.
Every chapter brings a new adventure.
Good story, interesting characters. And a book title that is sure to raise brows.
Yet another winner. Congrats again, Suhail Mathur

Plus Points:
An assortment of cool characters from Indian myth.
Fast-paced narration.
Surprises unfolding with each chapter.
Good writing.

Pick this book if you&aposre a lover of Indian myth or adventures in general.
Would recommend this to my friends. Just finished reading #TheHuntForRamasBow and I loved it.
Every chapter brings a new adventure.
Good story, interesting characters. And a book title that is sure to raise brows.
Yet another winner. Congrats again, Suhail Mathur

Plus Points:
An assortment of cool characters from Indian myth.
Fast-paced narration.
Surprises unfolding with each chapter.
Good writing.

Pick this book if you're a lover of Indian myth or adventures in general.
Would recommend this to my friends. . mere

Oh yes, the book deserves it. The way it is written. I would say perfect, but then, I remember the adage: no thing is perfect. It was such an engaging read that I never felt any inclination to put it down. The book is much better than even his previous book, &aposThe Bhairav Putras&apos.

The worldbuilding, the riddles, etc almost make me reminisce high fantasy epics like Lord of the Rings, but I understand this is an urban setting and hence not as complex systems as the genre I remember. But STORY: 4.8/5

Oh yes, the book deserves it. The way it is written. I would say perfect, but then, I remember the adage: no thing is perfect. It was such an engaging read that I never felt any inclination to put it down. The book is much better than even his previous book, 'The Bhairav Putras'.

The worldbuilding, the riddles, etc almost make me reminisce high fantasy epics like Lord of the Rings, but I understand this is an urban setting and hence not as complex systems as the genre I remember. But that's not to say that the worldbuilding in this book was an easy feat. Add to it a quest-like nature, I felt as if I was traveling with the characters. Felt like an RPG game, almost.

The characters are believable. The cover pic of this review post is of the protagonist, Mohan, who is mysterious right from the start. He is a good person, obviously, and destined for great things. A postgraduate student thrust into an almost alternate timezone to stop a tyrannical immortal demon who has gained a complex boon from Lord Shiva Himself. a story worth following. The story brings to the forefront many mythical folklores and tales, many of those belonging to The Ramayana. The major quest is to find Kodanda, the bow Lord Rama used to kill the demon king Ravana of Lanka.

Mohan has a girlfriend, Samaira. Although much hasn't been told of her in the book, even in the subplots where people are trying to determine the validity of the legend of the Rama Setu, I have grown to like the character from whatever the author has shown.

The protagonist is accompanied by a lot of friends and well-wishers like Jayadev and Rannvijaya, Pawan and Nagarjuna, etc. They meet on the way a lot of eminent mythological figures, but I will let you, the reader, find them and be surprised. The very story made me wonder: could they be alive? The chiranjeevis, I mean. Could the celestial weapons be found?

Any fiction that makes me ask questions or at the very least, make me wonder about things, I call it good fiction.

Oh, and there is also Alakshmi, whose riddles are. godt. extra-legally fair.

And then there is Garud, the Lord Vishnu's Vahana, who comes at moments where one would almost weep for the characters.

Not only does this book has a good storyline, but the writing also makes one read the book. The author shows a command over English that makes his language so easy to read, yet displays a vocabulary that highlights his knowledge of the language. The flow with which the book is written makes it a reading continuous, unable to put down. The grammar is excellent my eyes couldn't find a lot of typos either.

For mythology lovers, this book is a must and this is just the first one of The Vishnu Chronicles. Book Two is coming with more adventures and riddles. Oh, and the prophecies. . mere


With our large poster, you get access to knowledge about everything from the beginning of the world to the last day events of the revelation with characters, events and prophecies in the Bible.

For more information on the Bible history og historie, click on each Bible person or event.

Brought to you by the publishers of the Amazing Bible Timeline with World History study companion. We hope that this information complements your study of God’s Word.

For en printable Biblical Timeline chart showing more detail and Biblical events in parallel, click on the headings. These Bible timeline charts can be printed off and joined together to form a linear Bible timeline.


To Understand Your Past, Look to Your Future

Y ou’re thinking about time all wrong, according to our best physical theories. In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, there’s no conceptual distinction between the past and the future, let alone an objective line of “now.” There’s also no sense in which time “flows” instead, all of space and time is just der in some four-dimensional structure. What’s more, all the fundamental laws of physics work essentially the same both forward and backward.

None of these facts are easy to accept, because they’re in direct conflict with our subjective experience of time. But don’t feel too bad: They’re hard even for physicists to accept, an ongoing tension that places physics in conflict not just with common sense but also with itself. As much as physicists talk about time symmetry, they do not allow themselves to invoke the future, only the past, when seeking to explain occurrences in the world.

FRETTING ABOUT IT: Just as the boundaries of a guitar string (how it is pinned at both ends) determine how it vibrates, the distant past and far future of the universe may govern what happens today. Giphy / starsinasyringe.tumblr.com

When formulating explanations, most of us tend to think in terms laid down by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago. This “Newtonian Schema” takes the past as primary and uses it to solve for the future, explaining our universe one time-step at a time. Some researchers even go so far as to think of the universe as the output of a forward-running computer program, a picture that is a natural extension of this schema. Even though our view of time has changed dramatically in the last century, the Newtonian Schema has somehow endured as our most popular physics framework.

But imposing old Newtonian Schema thinking on new quantum-scale phenomena has landed us in situations with no good explanations whatsoever. If these phenomena seem inexplicable, we may just be thinking about them in the wrong way. Much better explanations become available if we are willing to take the future into account as well as the past. But Newtonian-style thinking is inherently incapable of such time-neutral explanations. Computer programs run in only one direction, and trying to combine two programs running in opposite directions leads to the paradoxical morass of poorly plotted time-travel movies. In order to treat the future as seriously as we treat the past, we clearly need an alternative to the Newtonian Schema.

To Predict Turbulence, Just Count the Puffs

The water is always running in Björn Hof’s laboratory. Like a Zen water fountain, it gently flows over the top of a reservoir into a tube, and from there into a glass pipe 15 meters long, but thinner than. LÆS MERE

And we have one. Most physicists are well aware of a different framework, an alternative where space and time are analyzed in an even-handed manner. This so-called Lagrangian Schema also has old roots and has become an essential tool in every field of fundamental physics. But even physicists who regularly use this approach have resisted the last obvious step: thinking of the Lagrangian Schema not just as a mathematical trick, but as a way to explain the world. Perhaps we haven’t been taking our own theories seriously enough.

The Lagrangian Schema doesn’t just allow future-based explanations. Det demands dem. By treating the future and the past on the same footing, this framework avoids paradoxes and makes new explanatory opportunities available. And it just might be the viewpoint that physics needs for the next major breakthrough.

T he first step toward understanding the Lagrangian Schema is to fully set aside the temporal “flow” of Newtonian thinking. This can best be done by treating spacetime regions holistically: considering the full duration all at once, rather than as sequential frames of a movie. We can picture regions of spacetime as bounded four-dimensional structures, with not just spatial boundaries, but also temporal boundaries—the initial and final bookends of the region.

All of classical physics, from electricity to black holes, can be expressed via the simple Lagrangian-based principle of “least-action.” To use it on a spacetime region, you first describe how physical parameters are constrained over the entire boundary. Then, for each set of possible events inside that boundary, you calculate a quantity called the “action.” The set of events with the lowest value of the action is the one that will actually occur, given the original boundary constraints and a few other technical caveats.

It is hard to accept that events might be explained by what goes on in the future.

For instance, when a ray of light travels from point A to point B, the action corresponds to the amount of travel time. The actual path is the fastest route, given the intermediate obstacles. By this way of thinking, a light ray bends at a glass interface simply because it minimizes the overall travel time. The Lagrangian Schema works a bit differently in quantum physics and yields probabilities rather than decisive predictions, but the basics are the same: Spacetime boundary constraints are still imposed all at once.

By Newtonian logic, this sounds quite strange. The light ray at A seems to possess foreknowledge (about point B and future obstacles), vast computational ability (to survey the different paths), and agency (to choose the fastest one). But this strangeness is merely evidence that Newtonian and Lagrangian thinking don’t mesh—and that we probably shouldn’t anthropomorphize light rays.

Instead of explaining events via only the past, the Lagrangian Schema starts with the entire boundary constraint—including, crucially, the final boundary. If you don’t impose a final constraint—for light rays, the location of point B—this approach fails to give the proper answer. But if used properly, the success of the mathematics indicates a clear logical priority of the boundary constraint: The boundary of any spacetime region explains the interior.

The Lagrangian approach provides the most elegant and flexible account of known physics, and physicists often prefer it. Still, despite the wide applicability of Lagrangian-based principles, even the physicists who use them don’t take them literally. It is hard to accept that events might be explained by what goes on in the future. After all, there are obvious distinctions between past and future. Given that we see such an evident arrow of time, how could future boundaries possibly matter just as much as past ones?

But there’s a way to reconcile the Lagrangian Schema with our causal experience. We just have to think sufficiently big, without losing sight of the details.

FACE LIT UP: Physics is reversible in time. If a spotlight illuminates a statue, you can also say that a statue illuminates a spotlight. We never do that in practice because it violates our expectations about what explanation means. PlusONE / Shutterstock

S uppose you take a flash photograph of a statue. Each ray of light obeys the least-action principle, giving a perfectly time-symmetric account of its path. But taken together, there’s an obvious asymmetry: The initial boundaries A are all clustered together at the flash, while the final boundaries B are spread out over the statue. Furthermore, it’s perfectly clear that the spreading of light from A is a much better explanation of the illumination at B than vice-versa. Even if the ray paths were viewed in reverse, no one would plausibly claim that the light was concentrated at the flashbulb because of complex patterns of light on the statue.

One lesson here is that satisfying explanations account for complicated events in terms of simple givens. They take a single fact, with just a few relevant parameters, to explain a plurality of events. This should be evident no matter which schema one is using.

But this asymmetry of A and B is not a rebuttal to the Lagrangian perspective, which merely says that A and B together can best explain the details of what happens in between. Even in the Lagrangian Schema, A and B are not independent of each other. To see how they’re related, we need to think bigger. According to the boundary framework of the Lagrangian Schema, explanations don’t chain. They nest. In other words, we don’t picture event A leading to event B leading to event C. Instead, we treat a small spacetime region in its entirety then we treat this region as part of a larger region (in both space and time). Applying the same Lagrangian logic, the larger boundaries should now explain everything in their interior, including the original boundaries.

If the future can constrain the past, why are the consequences confined to the quantum level?

Running this procedure for the statue example, we find the same asymmetry of bulb and illumination writ larger. That is, we find a satisfying explanation for the camera flash in its past, but we don’t explain the illumination of the statue by looking to its future. Then we can enclose that larger system in an even bigger one, and so on, until we have gone all the way out to the cosmological boundary—the external constraints on our entire universe. To the best of our knowledge, we see the same asymmetry at that scale: an unusual, smooth distribution of matter near the big bang, and greater disorder in the future.

Looking at ordinary spacetime regions from a Lagrangian perspective, the fact that initial boundaries (light rays diverging from flashbulbs) are simpler than final boundaries (lit statues) is strong evidence that our closest cosmological boundary lies to our past. The consistency of this ordering implies there is no corresponding cosmological boundary in the comparable future. So given the big bang as our best explanation of the obvious features of our universe, the evident direction of time is essentially no different from the spatial temperature gradient you feel when standing next to a cold window. In neither case is space or time asymmetric it’s just a matter of where you are located relative to the nearest boundary constraint.

On the classical scales that we typically observe, we don’t get any new information from the future boundary that we didn’t already have in the past. If this held true at all scales, the Lagrangian Schema would be in trouble, because the future boundary wouldn’t really matter at all. But in fact it isn’t true when we get down to the level of quantum uncertainty: Microscopic future details cannot be deduced from only the past. And the quantum scale is where the real power of the Lagrangian Schema becomes evident.

A TANGLED TALE: In a standard quantum-entanglement experiment, pairs of particles are emitted by a source and measured by detectors. Two computers, “Alice” and “Bob,” generate random numbers to control the detectors. Events at the detectors may dictate what happens at the source, even though they lie in its future. Jackie Ferrentino Based on sketch by authors

Q uantum entanglement is a concept that defies Newtonian Schema explanations. The details don’t matter for our purposes, so let’s consider the skeletal outline of a typical entanglement experiment (see A Tangled Tale). The apparatus in the center creates two particles. The left particle is sent to a detector controlled by one computer (“Alice”), and the right particle is sent to a distant detector controlled by another computer (“Bob”). The detectors measure their respective particles in one of several different ways, decided by independent random numbers. As the Irish physicist John Bell famously demonstrated in the ’60s, the measurement results of these experiments are correlated in ways that firmly resist our usual attempts at explanation.

In particular, the particles’ shared past isn’t sufficient to explain the measured correlations, at least not over the full range of measurement settings that Alice and Bob could randomly choose. Of course, many scientists vil have to explain these results physically and aren’t particularly happy with merely describing the correlations via bare mathematics. Left at a loss, they find themselves invoking mysterious entities not properly existing anywhere in space or time (begging for an explanation in their own right) or perhaps even traveling faster than light (in blatant violation of everything we know about Einstein’s theory of relativity).

Why can’t we use quantum phenomena to send messages into the past?

Leaving these desperate options aside, everyone agrees that if only the particles could anticipate Alice’s and Bob’s random settings in advance, a natural explanation could still be found. But most proposals to give the particles this information sound even more desperate, requiring what amounts to a form of cheating: The particles would somehow sniff out all the inputs to Alice’s and Bob’s random number generators and use that information to predict the future detector settings.

Almost no one buys this as a worthwhile explanation of the entanglement experiments, just as you wouldn’t accept an “explanation” of a localized camera flash as being due to the complicated details of a lit statue. Such conspiratorial accounts violate our reasonable standards of explanation: The putative mechanism is vastly more complicated than the simple outcomes it is trying to explain.

In the statue example, the obvious solution is to look to the simpler boundary—the flash—for the best explanation. For quantum entanglement, when using the Lagrangian viewpoint, a reasonable explanation is nearly as obvious. The explanation is not in the complex precursors to the detector settings, it’s in the simple future detector settings themselves.

The mysterious entangled particles exist in the shaded spacetime region in the figure, and the boundary of this region includes both their preparation and their eventual detection. The settings chosen by Alice and Bob are physically expressed by the actual detectors, on the final boundary—exactly where the Lagrangian Schema tells us to look for explanations. All we need to do is allow the particles to be directly constrained by that future boundary and a simple explanation of entanglement experiments becomes available. In this case, it’s the future and the past together that can best explain the observations.

Q uantum entanglement may not be the only mystery that we can dissolve by taking the future seriously as an explanation. Other quantum phenomena may also turn out to have an underlying simpler account, an explanation that could reside in ordinary space and time without any action at a distance. Maybe the probabilities in quantum theory will turn out to be like probabilities in every other scientific discipline: simply due to parameters that we don’t know (because some of them lie in the future).

Any such line of research will certainly raise significant questions. If the future can constrain the past, why are the consequences confined to the quantum level? Why can’t we use quantum phenomena to send messages into the past? At what scales does the cosmological boundary dominate, and how exactly should we generalize Lagrangian-based approaches to make this all work?

Addressing such questions might not just help physics it might also inform how we see ourselves as part of our four-dimensional universe. For example, according to the Lagrangian Schema, microscopic details in any region are not entirely constrained by the past boundary. On the level of the atoms in your brain, there are relevant but unknown constraints in the future. Perhaps this line of thinking could even help to explain our sense of free will, by providing a new sense in which the future is not purely determined by what has come before. Certainly it would require us to rethink the idea that there is a neat and objective difference between a fixed past and an open future.

Almost every time science has found a deeper, simpler, more satisfying explanation, it has led to a cascade of further scientific advances. So if there is a deeper account of quantum phenomena that we haven’t yet grasped, mastering that deeper level could lead to crucial advances in the vast array of technologies that utilize quantum effects. Mistaken instincts have certainly slowed past physics advances, and our instincts about time are as strong as they come. But there is a clear path forward to explaining some of nature’s deepest mysteries, if we can simply make ourselves look to the future.

Ken Wharton is a physics professor at San Jose State University, formerly an experimentalist working on high-intensity lasers, now a theorist working to unify physics by rethinking our conventional notions of time.

Huw Price is a philosopher professor at the University of Cambridge who is best known for exploring the time symmetry of physics. Beginning this fall, he will be director of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence to study the ramifications of artificial intelligence.

The lead art was created using an image from Christian Mueller / Shutterstock


Morrison’s sabre rattling defies logic, history

Recently, we were regaled by pictures of our fearless leader looking at a tank. It didn’t look like he knew what he was seeing, but that fit perfectly with the explanation he offered for being there in the first place. Australia needed to arm itself, he said, because the homeland was under threat and he was ‘ eerily haunted by similar times in the 1930s ’. Then it was Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, now China, but same horse different jockey, as it were.

What was necessary was the Defence Strategic Update and Force Structure Plan . Of course, we know what a great idea it is to counter weapons with weapons. Especially for those who rule the military-industrial complex: over the next ten years you and I will give them $575 billion dollars out of our taxes. Good idea, obviously. But I am still a little confused about that reference to the 1930s. What was Morrison talking about there?

Let’s listen to what he was saying first. The near future would be, he was convinced, a world that is ‘poorer, more dangerous and more disorderly’, a reminder, apparently, of ‘the existential threat we faced when the global and regional order suddenly collapsed in the 1930s and 1940s’. And this is why we were spending all that money and enlarging the ADF to 60,000 military personnel. There are a few points I would like to make here.

Number one: I am sure that those 60,000 people are amazing war horses and ready for anything. Also, those billions are a lot of money. On the other hand, the Chinese army is the biggest in the world, with 2.18 million active members . In that regard, Morrison is absolutely right to remind us of the 1930s.

In the years between WWI and WWII, Australia didn’t spend a lot of money on defence. It couldn’t. Not that it was ‘suddenly collapsing’, but shortly after WWI ended, first a serious drought and then the Great Depression broke out. The country had no money, so apart from a small group of professionals, the Permanent Military Forces, it had a larger group of civilian militia. The closer the country came to war, the more it spent on its military capability (and the poorer people became poorer because of that). But by then, Nazi Germany and the Japanese (and Italians) were way ahead of us. During the war, this led to endless fights between Curtin and Churchill about who could use the Australian forces to protect what. Churchill thought his Empire had preference, Curtin wanted them back in our country .

Why the warlike language by Scomo then? Apart from the fact that his mates in the military-industrial complex like to make some money?

The problem then, and now, is that we are a small nation. On a big island, with 36,000 kilometres of shoreline. We never have had, and never will, the capability to defend ourselves. Without the Yanks in WWII we would have been done for, and we will need them now as well. And if they are as reluctant and as arrogant as they were then, we are in for some fun and games. The good thing about being a tiny place that you can’t protect, is that it is wise not to even try. Why would you invest all that money into something you can’t really use anyway?

The build-up of our forces didn’t help us in the 1930s and it won’t help us now. Soft power (by which I don’t mean licking Chinese boots) seems much smarter to me. So why the warlike language by Scomo then? Apart from the fact that his mates in the military-industrial complex like to make some money? I am willing to bet that what is in the pipeline is conscription. It was then, and I am guessing that our fearless leader wants to introduce it again now. Of course, to force men to enrol in the military, you first have to give them boys’ toys. And you have to whip up enough fear in order for people to believe that it is necessary to ruin tens of thousands of men (and women?)’s lives.


NoSQL

The typifying feature of NoSQL databases is essentially the rejection of the &lsquorelational structuring of data&rsquo inherent to RDBMS. The recent impetus behind enterprises turning to NoSQL, commonly referred to as not only SQL, has been the latest explosion in transaction volume which must be recorded as so much commerce is conducted online. This in parallel with the boon of cheap online storage has popularized NoSQL. It makes a better friend of the ad-hoc changes and dynamism demanded by a growing enterprise than the relational database does. Creating a relational database involves research and consideration of what data conceivably needs to be tracked in order to construct a relational schema. However, if you&rsquore an agile App in startup mode, the NoSQL format allows you to voraciously hoard any and all points of data (even ones you hadn&rsquot imagined at the outset of setting up your database)—after all, you never know when it may be useful down the line.

The jury is undecided over whether NoSQL will supplant the relational model. The skepticism surrounding its candidacy illuminates a novel moment in this data history. One question begged of Big Data has been: Is anybody actually handling data big enough to merit a change to NoSQL architectures? This may be the first point in the history of databases that a data reservoir has found the world wanting in terms of incoming volumes of data.

Cover image of IBM RAMAC 305 (1956) courtesy IBM.

Noter

Some have mentioned the absence of graph databases in this brief history. An original draft included information on graph systems but was ultimately removed for concision.

In addition, an addendum on the unconventional ZigZag database can be found on Stephen&rsquos personal webpage.


Se videoen: Xenoblade Chronicles OST - Colony 6 - Future