Nascar is a multibillion-dollar business whose history and rich mythology are rooted in money; Southern liquor-runners and moonshiners gave the earliest, postwar version of the sport much of its tone. But long before the advent of stock-car racing, competitive drivers cared less about prize or profit than about simply completing the course. The men who lined up in the swirling snow of Times Square on the morning of February 12, 1908, were embarking on a nearly unimaginable feat: a race from New York to Paris, westward. The contest was sponsored not by Bank of America or Coors Light, but by the French newspaper Le Matin and the New York Times. The prize: a 1,400-pound trophy and proving it could be done.
The proposed route would take the drivers across the United States, including through areas with very few paved roads, and then head north through Canada. Next came a left turn at Alaska, which the drivers had to cross in order to arrive at the Bering Strait, which separated the American wilderness from the Russian one. The race's organizers started it in the middle of winter in the hope that the strait would be frozen. The course then led through Siberia, which no one had traveled by car, before heading into the final stretch: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Berlin and Paris—overall, a 22,000-mile trek in an age when the horse was considered more reliable than the horseless carriage. The New York-to-Paris race was suppoed to be (and is still largely considered) the greatest of them all, even surpassing the prior year's Peking-to-Paris competition, in which the winner, Italian Prince Scipione Borghese, enlisted donkeys and mules to pull his car and sipped oily water from its radiator to relieve his thirst. His reward was a magnum of champagne.
In Times Square that morning 17 men, including drivers, mechanics and journalists, crammed into six cars from four countries: three from France, and one each from Germany, Italy and the United States. A quarter of a million people lined Broadway up to northernmost Harlem; those who couldn't glimpse the cars had to settle for the whiff of gasoline and the strains of a brass band. The American entry, a 60-horsepower touring car called the Thomas Flyer, carried three extra gasoline tanks with a capacity of 125 gallons and primitive canvas convertible top. The race was scheduled to begin at 11 a.m., when Mayor George B. McClellan Jr., son of the Union Civil War general, planned to fire the starting pistol, but he was characteristically late. At a quarter-past, railroad financier Colgate Hoyt snatched the golden gun from the table and shot it into the air.
Emilio Sirtori, the driver for the Italian Zust, took with him 21-year-old journalist and poet Antonio Scarfoglio, who had threatened to pilot a motorboat across the Atlantic if his father didn't let him enter the race. (His father, a prominent newspaper editor in Naples, relented.) The German entrant, driving the Protos, was an aristocratic army officer named Hans Koeppen who regarded the race as an opportunity to raise his rank from lieutenant to captain. Montague "Monty" Roberts, manning the Thomas Flyer, was a gregarious crowd favorite and one of few American drivers who actually trained for races. His teammate was George Schuster, a 35-year-old mechanic for the E. R. Thomas Motor Company in Buffalo, New York. One of 21 children born to Casper Schuster, a German immigrant who worked as a blacksmith, George was an expert radiator solderer, chassis inspector, motor tuner and test driver. To Roberts, he was an ideal choice—high enough in the factory hierarchy to be considered indispensable, but too low to steal attention from Roberts himself. After the starting shot, the cars moved forward, Scarfoglio wrote, "between two thick hedges of extended hands amidst a roar as of a falling torrent." The poet blew a kiss to the crowd, and they were off.
The American team was headed by Monty Roberts and George Schuster, in the Thomas Flyer. From www.sportscardigest.com.
August Pons, driver of the French Sizaire-Naudin, drpopped out after only 96 miles with a broken differential. The De Dion, the Zust and the Thomas Flyer quickly emerged as the leaders, with the Protos and the Moto-Bloc bringing up the rear. In Hudson, New York, the cars plowed through foot-deep snow in a single file. Schuster circled the Thomas Flyer—which had no heater or windshield—with a stick to check snow depth and put down planks for traction. The trail out of Auburn, which the New York Times described as the worst road in the United States, lived up to its reputation, with the three leading cars getting mired at Dismal Hollow in the Montezuma Swamp. The men prepared to camp for the night, but an American guide hired by the Italians came with six horses to pull the cars through.
By March 8, the Thomas Flyer was leading in Julesburg, Colorado, and traveling with a new passenger: Hans Hendrick Hansen. The Norwegian had quit St. Chaffray's team after the De Dion got stuck in a particularly bad snowdrift; when Hansen, the Artic expert, failed to extricate it, he and the Frenchman began to argue. They agreed to settle the matter with a duel, but before they could find their pistols St. Chaffray made an executive (and cool-headed) decision to fire Hansen. "I could go afoot over the Siberian route and beat the De Dion car," Hansen retorted, and pledged his allegiance to the American flag.
Pulling the Thomas Flyer out of Colorado mud. From www.ameshistoricalsociety.org.
Meanwhile, the Zust was in Omaha, the De Dion in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Moto-Bloc in Maple Park, Illinois, and the Protos a bit behind in Geneva, Illinois. As the Thomas Flyer approached frenzied crowds in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Monty Roberts knew that his time in the great race was nearing its end. He wanted to sail to Paris in May and race in the Grand Prix. E. Linn Mathewson, the son of the general agent for Thomas cars in the Midwest, would drive the Flyer through Wyoming to Utah. Professional driver Harold Brinker, famous for surviving a crash the previous year that had killed another driver, would take command in Ogden. George Schuster, the indefatigable mechanic, would drive through Alaska and Siberia, and Roberts would return when the car neared Europe.
Before leaving Cheyenne, Schuster bought a .38-caliber Colt with a six-inch barrel, reasoning it might come in handy. He continued to sacrifice himself for the journey when no one else could or would, walking ten miles in the dead of night to find gasoline and navigating the car out of gullies they couldn't avoid. His acumen had kept the car running through blizzards, freezing temperatures and sandstorms. At each overnight stop, he repaired the fresh damage and readied the Flyer for the next leg of the journey. And he was so unheralded that newspaper reports frequently misspelled his name when they bothered to mention him at all.
By the time the Americans left Wyoming, they were leading by two states. The Italians were starting across Nebraska from Omaha. St. Chaffray was in Iowa, awaiting parts for the De Dion, while Lieutenant Koeppen in the Protos and Charles Godard in the Moto-Bloc were just entering Iowa. The Moto-Bloc was having mechanical trouble, although Godard was loath to disclose specifics. Desperate, he decided—in violation of the rules—to ship his car to San Francisco by railroad, but abandoned the idea when a photographer caught him in the act. Godard received a cable from the owners of his car: "Quit race, sell car and come home." The Moto-Bloc was finished, leaving only four cars.
The German Protos in Ogden, Utah. From www.theoldmotor.com.
Harold Brinker drove the Thomas Flyer from Utah through Nevada and around the border of Death Valley, arriving in San Francisco the third week of March, 900 miles ahead of his closest competitor, the Zust. Factory whistles sounded and automobile drivers blew their horns on Market Street. "The record of the Thomas car from New York to San Francisco was a remarkable feat," the New York Times concluded. "Many skeptics declared when the New York to Paris racers started out from New York in the dead of winter that none of them would get across Wyoming until summer, some that they would not reach Chicago and a few that they could not cross New York State." The Americans prepared to ship the Flyer on a freighter to Seattle. After a two-day trip there, it would be transferred to a cargo ship headed for Valdez, Alaska. Brinker begged Schuster to let him to continue with the team, even as an assistant, but the mechanic refused. It was finally his car and his turn.
On Wednesday, April 8, the Flyer touched Alaskan soil. The welcoming committee consisted of the entire population of Valdez, few of whom had ever seen a car. Schuster wasted no time investigating the Valdez-Fairbanks Trail in a single-horse sleigh, and concluded that the only way to cross Alaska in a car would be to dismantle it and ship the parts by dogsled. The Parisian race committee abandoned the idea of Alaska and the Bering Strait and directed the Americans to return to Seattle. Their new plan called for the cars to sail to Vladivostok and drive to Paris from there. While the Americans were still at sea, their competitors, including the ever-troubled Protos, arrived in Seattle and set sail for Russia. Then the Americans lost time getting their Russian visas in order. The Flyer had been the first to arrive on the Pacific coast but was now the last to leave, a few weeks behind the competition.
The Italian and French teams were forging across Japan when the race committee made another decision. In recognition of the time the Flyer lost detouring through Alaska, the American team was given an allowance of 15 days—which meant, essentially, that the Zust and the De Dion could beat the Flyer into Paris by two weeks and still lose. The Protos, meanwhile, would be penalized 15 days for resorting to the train from Ogden to Seattle; the committee didn't disqualify Lieutenant Koeppen entirely, concluding that there had been some honest confusion (unlike in Godard's case) about the rules.
The Thomas Flyer in Japan, with George Schuster at the wheel. From www.time.com.
In Russia, the racers were advised to give up and take the Trans-Siberian Railway. Scarfoglio reported that the "great men of the Russian government, all covered with gold lace," outlined the many reasons the venture would fail: "We shall be met on the road by Chinese brigands, Manchurian tigers, fever, plague, pestilence, famine—to say nothing of the mud after three months of rain, mosquitoes as big as locusts and other similar delights." The drivers agreed to start again evenly matched. With one day to prepare, George Schuster searched for a supply of gasoline, which was scarce in Siberia. Back at his hotel, he received a note summoning him to St. Chaffray's room. When he arrived he saw that the Italian team was already there.
"There is no petrol," the Frenchman announced. "There are no means of getting any. What there was is in my possession, and I offer it to the car which will agree to take me onboard." The Italians left the room in disgust. St. Chaffray tried to reason with the Americans, stating that he could get a seat on the German car, but the Flyer was sure to beat the Protos into Paris and he wished to be on the first car to arrive. He added that "it would not look well for a Frenchman to ride on a German machine." Schuster calmly said he'd think about it, but he was seething. Privately he told his team that he'd rather stay in Vladivostok for the rest of his life than accept St. Chaffray's bribe. Without fanfare, St. Chaffray transferred the rights to his gasoline to the Italian team, but was not allowed to join. His sponsor, the Marquis Jules-Albert de Dion, had decided he was finished.
In Perm, Russia, Schuster received a telegram from the Thomas factory in Buffalo: "Do you want us to send Montague Roberts to help you when you get on the good roads of Europe?" Schuster was so mad he could've "eaten nails," as he put it, and sent an immediate reply: "July 9: Arrived today. Expect to reach Paris on July 24. Schuster." The suggestion that he was good enough to drive the Flyer through the bogs of Siberia but not through the capitals of Europe impelled him, despite deadened nerves and aching limbs. He was now only a day ahead of the Protos and determined to maintain his lead.
There was one problem: Schuster kept getting lost. The Russians couldn't understand hand signals and the Americans couldn't understand Russian. One wrong turn cost the Americans 15 hours. Worse, the Flyer sunk into a mudhole and needed a day's worth of repairs. Schuster heard that Lieutenant Koeppen had left St. Petersburg the same day and was on his way to securing a three-day lead. The Italians remained 3,000 miles behind, in Atchunsk.
At 6:15 p.m. on Sunday, July 26, five and a half months and 21,933 miles from the start in Times Square, Lieutenant Koeppen arrived in Paris, slowly guiding the Protos down Boulevard Poissonniere. A delegation of editors from Le Matin greeted him with tepid enthusiasm and served a cold buffet at his reception. At the same time, Schuster was having breakfast at the Imperial Automobile Club of Berlin, where several people congratulated him on his good showing. He didn't bother to explain that the Protos would ultimately be docked two weeks for using the train in the American west, and that the Flyer was allotted two extra weeks for attempting the trip to Alaska. Schuster had a month in which to get to Paris and still win the race.
Parisians welcoming George Schuster and the Thomas Flyer. From www.time.com.
Schuster and his crew arrived on July 30, the Flyer making its way through the lines of lighted cafes, the crowds shouting wildly: "Vive le car Americain!" They cruised toward the Place de l'Opéra, where, in front of the Café de la Paiz, a gendarme stopped the car.
A crowd of Americans rushed from the café and tried to explain, but the officer waved them away. The law was the law: a car had to have a headlight to be on the streets of Paris at night, or the driver was to be placed under arrest. A quick-thinking man on a bicycle rode up to the car, jumped off and deposited his bike, which had a headlight, in the Flyer next to Schuster. Problem solved. The gendarme stepped aside.
Books: Julie M. Fenster, Race of the Century: The Heroic True Story of the 1908 New York to Paris Auto Race. New York: Crown, 2005; Dermot Cole: Hard Driving: The 1908 Auto Race from New York to Paris. New York: Paragon House, 1991. Allen Andrews: The Mad Motorists: The Great Peking to Paris Race of '07. Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1965.
Articles: "Macedonian Cry for Help from Foreign Autoists." Chicago Tribune, March 1, 1908; "First in Chicago Autos' Aim." Chicago Tribune, February 23, 1908; "New York to Paris the Hard Way, 100 Years Ago." New York Times, February 10, 2008; "Race to Paris Starts Today." New York Times, February 12, 1908; "The Greatest Race—1908 New York to Paris," by Art Evans. Sports Car Digest, September 28, 2011: http://www.sportscardigest.com/the-greatest-race-1908-new-york-to-paris/; "Tour of Autoists Like Polar Trip." Chicago Tribune, February 25, 1908; "Mathewson At Wheel of Racer." San Francisco Chronicle, March 12, 1908; "American Car Will Try to Cross Alaska." San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 1908; "Thomas, Winner, Reaches Paris." New York Times, July 31, 1908.


Yvonne Schiele received her PhD in Physics from University of Konstanz, Germany in 2016 for her research on crystalline silicon solar cells.
In 2016, she joined Robert Bosch GmbH and currently works in the Automotive Electronics business unit in Reutlingen close to Stuttgart where she is a project leader in MEMS sensor development. Her responsibilities include different sensor types, in particular low-g acceleration sensors especially designed for the application in automotive suspension systems.
Check out the incredible speaker line-up to see who will be joining Yvonne.


Blackberry celebrates "giant step forward"
Cylance buyout will bolster IOT credentials.
The sky didn't fall in when US phone intercept laws changed.
University team wins right to compete in Japan's RoboCup.
Using Watson AI to 'speak' to lights, audio and other smart devices.
Devices that can defend themselves from attack now one step closer.
Industry executives explain how to overcome the challenges.
Edge analytics and 'modern' machine learning are key drivers, says SAS executive.
Artificial intelligence to 'disrupt' the way we work.


text:
'use strict';

import React, {Component, PropTypes} from 'react';
import { Link } from 'react-router';
import {connect} from 'react-redux';
import userService from '../services/user';
import * as actions from '../actions/qm-actions';
import classNames from 'classnames';

class Menu extends Component {

    constructor(props) {
        super(props);

        this.state = {
            isShowingUserMenu: false
        };

        this.logout = this.logout.bind(this);
        this.toogleUserMenu = this.toogleUserMenu.bind(this);

    }

    logout() {
        const {router} = this.context;
        const {logout} = this.props;

        userService.erase();
        logout();
        router.push('/login');
    }

    toogleUserMenu(e) {
        e.preventDefault();
        const {isShowingUserMenu} = this.state;

        this.setState({
            isShowingUserMenu: !isShowingUserMenu
        });
    }

    render() {

        const {user} = this.props;
        const {isShowingUserMenu} = this.state;

        return (

                Qm Forum

                        <Link to="/topics" activeClassName="active">Topics</Link>

                            <Link to="/topic/create" activeClassName="active">New topic</Link>

                                {!user ? 'Loading...' : ` ${user.firstName || ''} ${user.lastName || ''} `}

                                    Logout

        );
    }
}

Menu.contextTypes = {
    router: PropTypes.object.isRequired
};

Menu.propTypes = {
    logout: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
    user: PropTypes.object
};

export default connect(
    state => ({ user: state.user }),
    dispatch => ({
        logout: () => {
            dispatch(actions.userLogout());
        }
    }),
    null,
    {pure: false}
)(Menu);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


There is a growing trend across the United States and in Michigan to categorize crimes as "hate crimes" or to consider the discriminatory motivation behind the crime. The Michigan crime of Ethnic Intimidation is a part of that trend. If you are facing prosecution for Ethnic Intimidation, the Michigan criminal defense team at The Kronzek Firm can assist you. We offer cutting edge defenses, excellent trial skills, and many years of courtroom experience to our Michigan clients. You can contact us at (866) 766-5245.
Michigan law prohibits ethnic intimidation, also known as a hate crime, where a person maliciously and specifically intends to harass or intimidate another person because of his or her color, race, gender, religion, or national origin.
Specifically, a person may not do the following to the targeted person: (1) Have physical contact with that person. (2) Destroy, damage, or deface that person's property. (3) Threaten by act or words to have physical contact with that person or to damage their property, if there is reasonable cause to believe such an act will occur.
This offense is a felony with a maximum penalty of up to 2 years in prison, a fine up to $5,000.00, or both.
Regardless of the outcome of criminal prosecution of a case, a person who suffers injury to person or property may bring a civil cause of action against an alleged perpetrator to secure actual damages including for emotional distress or an injunction. If a plaintiff prevails in the civil suit, he or she may recover damages in the amount of 3 times the actual damages, or $2,000.00, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Avoiding stiff penalties like heavy fines and prison time is important if you facing felony criminal charges. Our lawyers have decades of experience and work hard to preserve your freedom and reputation. The Kronzek Firm PLC offers a free consultation at (866) 7-NoJail for those looking for legal representation. Our attorneys are available by appointment and also 24/7 for emergency situations.


text:
The Apocrypha Books
On April 16, 2017 May 25, 2020 By J. WilliamsIn Apolegetics/Doctrine/Theology, False Practices, False Teachings, Apostasy, Miscellaneous Deceptions and Lies From satan
The Apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church? The following references can be verified at http://www.newadvent.org/bible.
Problems in the Apocrypha
When we look into the Apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.
Condones the use of magic
Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.
Salvation by works:
Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us – not money or food given to poor people. "But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.
Historical Errors
Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Obviously, the Apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts – it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired by God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition rather than God's absolute truth.
Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined and
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." … "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine…"(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."
Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?
Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha. If I were not afraid of absolute statements, I would say that their defense of the apocrypha is only because of the passage and their claims about its teachings.
The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. However, they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.
The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal
The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.
Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, … only 22 books. which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;…It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;…and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).
Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.
The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:
"…all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,…And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief… For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).
"…I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers…" 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).
This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:
"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matthew 10: 19-20).
"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131.
Catholic arguments:
Catholics argue: This is refuted because:
Early Christians quote from the apocrypha proves it belongs in the Bible Early Christians quoted from all kinds of uninspired writings other than the apocrypha. Why do Catholics not include these in their Bible's
They were included in the Septuagint. The Jews Never accepted the apocrypha as part of the Old testament canon.
The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), listed the apocrypha as Scripture. Since these same councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, they must accept them all. False. The canon of the New Testament was set from the first century. It is Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible!
The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 – 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.
The apocrypha does not belong in the Bible because It IS not inspired.
AbelapocryphaBaruchBel and the DragonCouncil of Trent 1546Danieldead sea scrollsEcclesiasticusEsdrasEstherezraJews ProtestantsJudithMaccabeesMalachimanual of disciplinenew testamentold testamentPrayer of ManassehreformationRoman Catholic BibleseptuagintSirachSong of the Three Young MenSusannathe law and the prophetsThe Letter of JeremiahTobitWisdom of SolomonZechariah
False Prophet Joseph Smith On Hell
The Nephilim – There Were Giants in Those Days
14 thoughts on "The Apocrypha Books"
jmshistorycorner
Absolutely false on many levels.
J. Williams
https://jmshistorycorner.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/the-canon-of-scripture-part-1-the-apocrypha/
https://jmshistorycorner.wordpress.com/2020/05/21/refuting-myths-misconceptions-and-lies-about-our-faith/
Maybe I missed it but you didn't directly address the fact the books of the Apocrypha contradict the books of the Bible.
Another example is in the Book of Enoch. In 1st Tim. 2:5 Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel. According to the Book of Enoch, Noah was born with eyes that were like laser lights that illuminated the whole house. Where's that in the Bible? In the Book of Enoch, Methuselah goes to the ends of the earth to speak to Enoch who is in heaven. Yet Hebrews 11:5 says: "…Enoch was TAKEN AWAY, so that he wouldn't see death, and HE WAS NOT FOUND, because God translated him…" The Book of Enoch reads all sin in the world is from an angel called Azazel, but the Bible reads it was from Adam (Rom. 5:12). God had taken Enoch 69 years before Noah was born, but the Book of Enoch often tells of discussions & interactions between Noah & Enoch (Ch. 65, 106, 107, & more). In fact, Ch. 65 tells the story of how Noah went to the "ends of the earth" & cried out to Enoch & asked Enoch what was going to happen on the earth.
Problem is, it doesn't contradict. Prayers for the dead, while futile, aren't forbidden in Scripture, and Maccabees doesn't directly endorse them; it records an incident of prayers being given for the dead, and says that the thought was noble, but that's it.
Where does the Apocrypha talk about sinless perfection?
I think you're misunderstanding Phanuel.
There's absolutely nothing about the description of Noah at birth in Enoch that contradicts anything in the rest of the Bible. Genesis simply doesn't give the details of Noah's birth – merely his father's age. This objection is silly.
Enoch wasn't found by those who searched for him when he disappeared. The Methuselah incident was some time later, and Methuselah didn't find Enoch; Enoch came to him.
Enoch never says all sin is derived from Azazel. In fact, it says that the angel who tempted Eve was Gadreel. Nothing in Enoch contradicts Romans.
And it's made clear in Enoch that Noah and Enoch's discussions occurred AFTER Enoch's translation, with God's permission. Not before.
AND whether Enoch was translated before or after Noah's birth depends on whether you're looking at the Masoretic or Samaritan texts.
The Book of Enoch wasn't even written by Enoch. It is a collection of books believed to be written by multiple authors and during various time periods that extend from 300 BC to 200 AD. Therefore, the Book of Enoch is not believed to be the work of Enoch found in Genesis as the Book of Enoch implies.
One translation of the Book of Enoch has the giants as 4,500 feet tall! But even using another translation that reads it is 450 feet tall it still is incredible.
For comparison, Noah's Ark was about 450 feet long – how ridiculous to claim giants as tall as the length of the Ark?
Yes, prayers for the dead does contradict the Bible.
The Bible forbids going to necromancers who do invoke the dead (read Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:11).
In Enoch 10:8 it reads" 8. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.'" https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Enoch_(Charles)/Chapter_10
That contradicts the Bible.
Methuselah found Enoch after he passed according to the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch reads in Ch. 106 " 4. And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled, and came to his father Methuselah. 5. And he said unto him: 'I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. 6. And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels, and I fear that in his days a wonder may be wrought on the earth."
There is nothing in the Bible that suggests Noah was an angel and had sun ray eyes. The Bible however reads Noah was a mere man.
In verse 7 it reads "And now, my father, I am here to petition thee and implore thee that thou mayst go to Enoch, our father, and learn from him the truth, for his dwelling-place is amongst the angels.'"
Methuselah goes to "the ends of the earth" and finds Enoch and Enoch says "Behold, I am here my son, why have you come to me?"
But Enoch was already translated. That contradicts the Bible.
God had taken Enoch 69 years before Noah was born, but the Book of Enoch often tells of discussions & interactions between Noah & Enoch (Ch. 65, 106, 107, & more).
The Bible reads the dead can't contact the living (Luke 16:19-31). Hebrews 11:5 reads Enoch was NOT found.
Phanuel was supposedly set over the repentance unto hope and to those who inherit eternal life. That contradicts the Bible. Only God is the source of salvation (Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5).
There is a very good reason why the Book of Enoch is not part of the canon. If the sovereign God wanted the Book of Enoch in the Bible it would be in the Bible.
"The Book of Enoch wasn't even written by Enoch."
The Bible says otherwise. Read Jude.
Enoch is pretty clear that sin entered through Adam and Eve, not during the great angelic fall. You're nitpicking.
*There is nothing in the book of Enoch suggesting that Noah was an angel. It explicitly states that he was a normal human.* He briefly shone at birth, but was a normal human. WHICH DOESN'T CONTRADICT THE BIBLE, RENDERING IT A NON-ARGUMENT.
I understood the text at Noah's birth to mean that Enoch was already translated, and was allowed by God to speak to his son (and grandson). Which doesn't contradict the Bible.
"The Bible reads the dead can't contact the living (Luke 16:19-31)"
AND YET SAMUEL WAS ALLOWED TO TALK TO SAUL. By your argument, we must reject the First Book of Samuel.
Plus, Enoch never died.
PLUS, YOU ARE ASSUMING THE MASORETIC AGES ARE CORRECT. The three main textual traditions of Genesis – Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint – disagree as to the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5. We have no way of proving which one is correct.
Apparently, God can't work through angels in your eyes.
The Book of Enoch IS in the Bible – in the Ethiopian Christian & Jewish sects, and in some non-Ethiopian Bibles. Your strawman argument is the equivalent of a Jew saying "If God wanted the New Testament to be in the Bible, it would be in the Bible".
The Fallen Angels in the Book of Enoch could easily be the pagan gods of Egyptian, Greek, and Hindu mythologies. Something to consider
AND the Book of Enoch isn't part of the Apocrypha. I accept both, but their discussions are somewhat separate.
Jude doesn't say Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch. Just because a quote in Jude attributed to Enoch doesn't necessitate the Book of Enoch had to be written by Enoch. Jude's quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. Paul quoted from pagan sources such as the pagan philosopher & poet Aratus & Epeminides.
"There is nothing in the book of Enoch suggesting that Noah was an angel. It explicitly states that he was a normal human."
The Book of Enoch suggests he is more than human:
"'I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. 6. And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels, and I fear that in his days a wonder may be wrought on the earth."
It's debatable that it was really Samuel who to Saul by the Witch of Endor.
The following reasons why it is debatable is as follow:
1)Verse 13-14 ..what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. [14] And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle.
The medium has seen "gods" ascending out of the earth.
She saw "what appeared to be Samuel", among "false gods", ascending out of the earth. This tells me it was a familiar spirit (demonic spirit) as it also ascended out of the earth with the other demonic spirits (false gods).
2) By Dividing the word rightly, with the rest of the Bible:
1 Chronicles 10:13-14 KJV
[13] So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it ; [14] And enquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
Saul was actually enquiring about the familiar spirit, not Samuel himself.
3) God allowing a witch to conjure up the real Samuel sets a horrible precedent and example for followers of God. If God allowed it once before then there is a possibility God can allow something like it again. But God will never allow one who practices divination or witchcraft, which is an abomination to God, to conjure up his people.
4) Technically, "Samuel" gave a false prophecy. Saul was not killed by his enemies as stated by "Samuel" (1 Samuel 28:19), rather he killed himself (1 Samuel 31:5). Therefore the prophecy was false. Since it was a false prophecy, it could not have been given by God.
5) Moreover, v. 19 reads Saul will be with "Samuel" when he dies. But this "Samuel" told Saul that the Lord has departed from him and become his enemy (v. 16). So how did Saul end up in heaven or paradise with Samuel when he is an enemy of God?
6) Finally, the scriptures plainly state that God refused to speak to Saul through His prophets (v. 15).
Okay, but Hebrews 11:5 reads Enoch was NOT found.
"PLUS, YOU ARE ASSUMING THE MASORETIC AGES ARE CORRECT"
Aren't you assuming it is not?
But the New Testament is in the Bible. The reason why some books or epistles are excluded from canon is that it doesn't harmonize. Few early Christians believed the books of the Apocrypha belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament numerous times but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal. Also, there are just many contradictions. Found on this site https://carm.org/catholic/errors-apocrypha and http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
Funny, Lee Strobel uses the SEPTUAGINT as the best and primary source in his book a CASE FOR CHRIST. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e8/42/90/e84290fc4a0322d28eae1c3abc773d25.jpg
gregory dashnaw
Thank you very much for your hard work and great attention to detail. We are from Denmark and your presentation here as well as your accurate and extreme attention to relevant detail in your return comments to specific others attempting to argue against you. Brilliant!!! Well done and bravo from us here in Denmark…May 19, 2021
Noah Peterson
This is probably the least accurate thing you could teach. Unless your goal is exploitation instead of education,
I think your getting 2 babylon mixed up , One is the historical babylon , the 2 is a Mystery symbolic of 2 different places.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


That after the word "printed" the words "at intervals of not less than twelve months and " be inserted.
Senator MILLEN(New South Wales).When this amendment was submitted I suggested what appeared to be an improvement, namely, that instead of the words of Senator de Largie's proposal, we should adopt the words of the Act, " immediately previous to a general election," and insert the word " other " before the word " times." I understand that Senator de Largie is willing to accept my suggestion in lieu of his own amendment. To make it compulsory that there shall be a print every twelve months, might mean some unnecessary printing, and yet not give that reprint which, above all others, is absolutely essential - the reprint immediately previous to a general election.
Senator Keating - There is no objection to a provision that supplemental rolls shall be prepared prior to every election, but there might be difficulty about printing, especially in country districts.


text:
Fiesch Feriendorf railway station (), also known as Fiesch Sport- & Feriencenter railway station, is a railway station in the municipality of Fiesch, in the Swiss canton of Valais. It is an intermediate stop on the  gauge Furka Oberalp line of the Matterhorn Gotthard Bahn and is served by local trains only.

Services
The following services stop at Fiesch Feriendorf:

 Regio:
 hourly service between  and .
 hourly service between  and .

References

External links

Railway stations in the canton of Valais
Matterhorn Gotthard Bahn stations

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
North Carolina House District 52 Analysis: Boles (R) v. Moss (R)
by Jim Stirling
Research Fellow, John Locke Foundation
Having already discussed the two incumbent primaries in the senate, Senate District Forty-Seven Hise v. Ballard and Senate District One Steinburg v. Sanderson. We now look to the House of Representatives and its incumbent primaries. The first is North Carolina House District 52, which has incumbents James Boles (R) & Ben Moss (R) pitted against one another in the May primary.
To compare both Representative's Name ID in the new House District Fifty-Two, we measured the portion of their old districts in the new one based on total population, voting-age population, and potential Republican primary voters. That overlap population is factored at the precinct level and only counts the part of the old district that remains in the new district. We calculated Republican primary voters the same way we run the Civitas Partisan Index (CPI), taking statewide elections and averaging the elections out. The elections we used for these calculations were the statewide 2020 Republican primary elections for US Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Commissioner of Labor, Commissioner of Insurance, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Auditor.
Due to Moore County not having all primary votes assigned to a specific precinct, we addressed this in the same way we have in the CPI. We averaged all one-stop, absentee, and provisional ballots and multiplied them by the proportion of the county's voting-age population that is in the new district.
North Carolina House District Fifty-Two: Boles v. Moss
Boles is serving his 7th term in the General Assembly and is the Senior Chair for the Appropriations, Justice & Public Safety Committee. Moss is new to the General Assembly, having only just been elected in 2020 to his first term in state government. The new district includes all of Richmond County and half the population of Moore County.
While both Representatives have a comparable district overlap regarding total population and voting age, Moss has a slight advantage in both accounts. However, Boles has a distinct advantage in Name-ID due to the higher population of primary voters in Moore County compared to Richmond. Boles has been in office for nearly 14 years at the time of the election, increasing the likelihood of voters recognizing his name. While there are many other factors that go into an election, this would indicate Boles has a head start on Republican primary voters recognizing his name on the ballot in May.
State Board of Elections Announces Max Contribution Increase for 2024 elections
Lame Duck North Carolina Supreme Court May Have Just Paved the Way for Redistricting Reversal
Here Is a Novel Idea: Let the Constitution Decide Moore v. Harper