Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Water Treatment

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Drybones wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      Who invented the cat hole?
      It's in the Bible. Deuteronomy 23:13.
      I'm thinking that would be the oldest reference to a cat hole....what was it....4500 years ago or so.
      Nicea is when the Bibe was put together... a number of books were used by many peoples in many locations. There was no set of books everyone used that were the same.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      Who invented the cat hole?
      It's in the Bible. Deuteronomy 23:13.
      I'm thinking that would be the oldest reference to a cat hole....what was it....4500 years ago or so.
      Nicea is when the Bibe was put together... a number of books were used by many peoples in many locations. There was no set of books everyone used that were the same.
      amazing......
      bacon can solve most any problem.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      Nicea is when the Bibe was put together... a number of books were used by many peoples in many locations. There was no set of books everyone used that were the same.

      It's usually believed that the text of the Pentateuch stabilized about the fifth century BCE. Fragments of the Book of Numbers were found in ruins in Jerusalem (at Ketef Hinnom) that are pretty reliably dated to 650-700 BCE. Even if one accepts only the documentary hypothesis, and not Mosaic authorship, the standard text of the Torah is considerably older than the Nicene Council.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      It's usually believed that the text of the Pentateuch stabilized about the fifth century BCE. Fragments of the Book of Numbers were found in ruins in Jerusalem (at Ketef Hinnom) that are pretty reliably dated to 650-700 BCE. Even if one accepts only the documentary hypothesis, and not Mosaic authorship, the standard text of the Torah is considerably older than the Nicene Council.

      Brother, if I'm fortunate enough to have walked that far, I really want to stop and grab a coffee with you. The depth is just never-ending...
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."

    • However, the Torah is part of the Old Testament. The Christian Bible is the Old Testament and the New Testament. Nicea made one book, where before there were different versions of the Bible in use in different cities. The Dead Sea Scrolls came about because one group decided their views must be preserved. So they hid them, instead of burning/getting rid of them as ordered.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      However, the Torah is part of the Old Testament. The Christian Bible is the Old Testament and the New Testament. Nicea made one book, where before there were different versions of the Bible in use in different cities. The Dead Sea Scrolls came about because one group decided their views must be preserved. So they hid them, instead of burning/getting rid of them as ordered.
      Actually, the Essenes simply had the books in storage when their community was wiped out. But the scrolls do provide insight into the fact that there were multiple textual variants in circulation at the time.

      And certainly Nicaea did not leave us with a "single Bible." There are the mainstream Protestants (who reject OT texts that are in the Septuagint but not the Masoretic Bible), the Catholics (plus Anglicans, some Lutherans, Hussites, ...) who accept books such as Judith, Wisdom, and Yeshua ben-Sira, the Byzantine churches (with their own set of deuterocanonical books, such as 3 Esdras), the Alexandrines, the Ethiopians, the Armenians, .... each with slightly different sets of books, although for the most part the Masoretic books are accepted by all.

      Interestingly, no documents from Nicaea survive that prescribe a fixed canon. The nearest thing we have to a contemporary reference is a letter from Athanasius of Alexandria, forty years later, enumerating the books and referring to a canon supposedly fixed by the Council.

      The oldest list of canonical books for which we have contemporary evidence that any ecumeniical council promulgated as canon dates from the Council of Trent, nearly a millennium later, although it is clear that the magisterium had indeed fixed the canon some time earlier, and the list matches that of Athanasius. But debates about the authenticity of Hebrews, James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (the Antilegomena) persisted even into Luther's time (many Lutheran bibles print these in a separate section). At the same time, the Didache (or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the First Epistle of Clement, at least, were widely included even after Athanasius condemned them.

      Even today, there are fragments that are disputed in the mainstream. For instance, in 1927, Pope Pius XI declared that I John 5:7-8 are "open to debate." (They appear to have been a third-century gloss inadvertently incorporated into the text by a copyist. They do break up the flow of the text somewhat, although with John, how can you tell?)

      Those who accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God must also have considerable faith that certain bishops were also inspired inerrantly in their choices - and likewise that innumerable copyists were protected from error. My personal belief is that the Holy Spirit works with the human material that She finds - and that the messy process of disputes among the faithful, eventually arriving at mutual understandings, is indeed how She reveals God's Will and Word to us. Or, nearly equivalently stated, "it's complicated."

      Diligently studying the deuterocanon and pseudepigraphia - with a critical eye toward why the Fathers accepted or rejected them - yields key insights into the meaning of the books that were chosen for inclusion, as the Fathers understood it.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • Very complicated. I grew up as what is called a 'hard shell Baptist'. I haven't believed like that for many years now. Things like two creation myths in Genesis and hipocritcal preachers and church deacons got me to rethink things.

      Yeah, I noticed the 'She' you used.

      No problem, I remember a joke that was going around about 1968-1970.

      'When God made man, She was only joking.'

      I thought it made sense, and was funny. Some of the other sailors on the ship thought it was something else.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      I noticed the 'She' you used.
      The Holy Spirit was She right up until Jerome. Hebrew Shekhina שכינה, Ruach ר֫וּחַ are both feminine, and Greek Pneuma πνεῦμα is neuter but usually takes a feminine pronoun when personified. Jerome chose to translate the words as 'spiritus,' but before the Vulgate, nobody used a masculine pronoun for the Spirit.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      I noticed the 'She' you used.
      The Holy Spirit was She right up until Jerome. Hebrew Shekhina שכינה, Ruach ר֫וּחַ are both feminine, and Greek Pneuma πνεῦμα is neuter but usually takes a feminine pronoun when personified. Jerome chose to translate the words as 'spiritus,' but before the Vulgate, nobody used a masculine pronoun for the Spirit.

      Interesting, as I never heard that until now. But I did know that the male dominated religious beliefs suppressed the femaile oriented religions.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      I noticed the 'She' you used.
      The Holy Spirit was She right up until Jerome. Hebrew Shekhina שכינה, Ruach ר֫וּחַ are both feminine, and Greek Pneuma πνεῦμα is neuter but usually takes a feminine pronoun when personified. Jerome chose to translate the words as 'spiritus,' but before the Vulgate, nobody used a masculine pronoun for the Spirit.
      i m as impressed by your fluency in foreign language fonts as i am with the content.
      good stuff, ak.
      its all good

    • OzJacko wrote:

      And yes if I was out of tp I would not hesitate to use a bible or a koran.
      Well, if a cat hole can be in the Bible (Deuteronomy 23:13), then I suppose the Bible could be in a cat hole.

      The Word may be sacred, but the book is just ink and paper. (In another time and place, when it might take months of a scribe's time to produce one, they had to be protected, but even then, it's reported that they used spoilt manuscripts as anitergium.)
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • The text of a bible is sacred to a Christian, the text of the koran is to a Muslim.
      The actual book is like you say just paper and ink.
      If you can use a one as tp you should be able to use both. If you have a feeling of impiety using one then you are insulting the other by discriminating.
      I have no feeling of impiety with any hence my readiness to use either.
      I haven't mentioned the Torah as much of it is the Old Testament anyway.
      All 3 religions are so similar as to not really be separated in my eyes. It is the day to day interpretation of the texts where the three differ, not the texts themselves.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      The text of a bible is sacred to a Christian, the text of the koran is to a Muslim.
      The actual book is like you say just paper and ink.
      If you can use a one as tp you should be able to use both. If you have a feeling of impiety using one then you are insulting the other by discriminating.
      I have no feeling of impiety with any hence my readiness to use either.
      I haven't mentioned the Torah as much of it is the Old Testament anyway.
      All 3 religions are so similar as to not really be separated in my eyes. It is the day to day interpretation of the texts where the three differ, not the texts themselves.
      i prefer charmin
      its all good

    • At a church bible study many years ago, our pastor commented that according to our denomination's teachings, divine inspiration that resulted in the authoring of sacred texts ended with the books of the Christian Bible. Other texts that came after that claiming to be written by divine inspiration are heretical. I then pointed out that the Bible wasn't assembled for a few hundred years after the books were written, so by your logic the Bible is potentially flawed. Wouldn't you also have to accept as divine inspiration the council that assembled the current canon? He said "OK you got me, everything else except for that".

    • odd man out wrote:

      At a church bible study many years ago, our pastor commented that according to our denomination's teachings, divine inspiration that resulted in the authoring of sacred texts ended with the books of the Christian Bible. Other texts that came after that claiming to be written by divine inspiration are heretical. I then pointed out that the Bible wasn't assembled for a few hundred years after the books were written, so by your logic the Bible is potentially flawed. Wouldn't you also have to accept as divine inspiration the council that assembled the current canon? He said "OK you got me, everything else except for that".
      Most accepted versions of the bible have their oldest version in Latin. The Dead Sea Scrolls I believe are in Aramaic. It's hard to believe a version written in Latin is the word of Jesus.
      I assume the original Torah is written in Hebrew and Koran in Arabic.
      All 3 basically start their story with Abraham.
      So all this grief and conflict in the world trace back to a man who was about to kill his son because voices told him too.
      No wonder we fight each other.
      I always like that bit in Judas' song in Jesus Christ Superstar... "why did you pick such a strange time and nation? Israel in 4BC had no mass communication."
      I feel people can believe whatever they wish but belief in a Creator and inherent add ons should not be involved in the law of the land or international relations. It is personal belief. Think of it as a HYOH thing. It's your belief, you have no right to impose it on another.
      I am very big on morals, very small on beliefs.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The text of a bible is sacred to a Christian, the text of the koran is to a Muslim.
      The actual book is like you say just paper and ink.
      If you can use a one as tp you should be able to use both. If you have a feeling of impiety using one then you are insulting the other by discriminating.
      I have no feeling of impiety with any hence my readiness to use either.
      I haven't mentioned the Torah as much of it is the Old Testament anyway.
      All 3 religions are so similar as to not really be separated in my eyes. It is the day to day interpretation of the texts where the three differ, not the texts themselves.
      i prefer charmin
      Please don't squeeze it.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • Drybones wrote:

      I treat water with respect.
      Good idea. In MI we have 20% of the world's liquid surface fresh water so we tend to take it for granted. Few others have that luxury. Here is the water source at my campsite last week. 3000 cubic miles of nice clear water (I still filtered it though).

      [IMG:https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11950204_10156079970860595_5337871728082698083_o.jpg]

    • odd man out wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      I treat water with respect.
      Good idea. In MI we have 20% of the world's liquid surface fresh water so we tend to take it for granted. Few others have that luxury. Here is the water source at my campsite last week. 3000 cubic miles of nice clear water (I still filtered it though).
      [IMG:https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11950204_10156079970860595_5337871728082698083_o.jpg]
      And y'all used to think those zebra mussels were the devil.....
      If your Doctor is a tree, you're on acid.

    • Drybones wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      The text of a bible is sacred to a Christian, the text of the koran is to a Muslim.
      The actual book is like you say just paper and ink.
      If you can use a one as tp you should be able to use both. If you have a feeling of impiety using one then you are insulting the other by discriminating.
      I have no feeling of impiety with any hence my readiness to use either.
      I haven't mentioned the Torah as much of it is the Old Testament anyway.
      All 3 religions are so similar as to not really be separated in my eyes. It is the day to day interpretation of the texts where the three differ, not the texts themselves.
      i prefer charmin
      Please don't squeeze it.
      Use Viva strong and soft paper towels. You can squeeze it, it can get wet, (makes a great pre-filter) you can scrub pots and pans with it (if you carry them) and you can ring it out and dry it. Light fires with it (dried out of course) One of the more multi-purposed items I've carried.
      Changes Daily→ ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫ ← Don't blame me. It's That Lonesome Guitar.

    • I forgot my water filter on my overnight last weekend. Drank almost two gallons of untreated stream water.

      Now I have a terrible headcold, just like the one that my son has...clearly I caught it from the water...
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • Drybones wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      rafe wrote:

      I'm certain he's right about this much: a lot of illnesses seen on hikes come from poor hygiene and from careless food sharing. Not all of it comes from the water. There's just nothing much that's provable with regard to the efficacy of various water treatment systems.
      Through the centuries of warfare, poor field sanitation has caused more casualties than weaponry
      Who invented the cat hole?
      some LNT puss

    • odd man out wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      I treat water with respect.
      Good idea. In MI we have 20% of the world's liquid surface fresh water so we tend to take it for granted. Few others have that luxury. Here is the water source at my campsite last week. 3000 cubic miles of nice clear water (I still filtered it though).
      [IMG:https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11950204_10156079970860595_5337871728082698083_o.jpg]
      excerpted from the "Mariners tale" ~Samuel Taylor Coleridge

      Water, water, every where,
      And all the boards did shrink;
      Water, water, every where,
      Nor any drop to drink.

    • Mountain-Mike wrote:

      SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      I forgot my water filter on my overnight last weekend. Drank almost two gallons of untreated stream water.

      Now I have a terrible headcold, just like the one that my son has...clearly I caught it from the water...
      Did you get tested for Giardia yet? <X ?( :evil:
      Well I pooped and it came out solid, so I'd say negative on the beaver fever.

      Besides, I live just above the mouth of the filthy Housatonic, if I were gonna catch something I probably would have by now.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.