Podcasts about if simon

This week, Jeffrey is joined by return guest, Simon Timms, to discuss microservices architecture.   Simon Timms is a long-time freelance Software Engineer, multi-time Microsoft MVP co-host of ASP.NET Monsters on Channel 9, and also runs the Function Junction Youtube channel. He considers himself a generalist with a history of working in a diverse range of industries. He’s personally interested in A.I., DevOps, and microservices; and is skilled in Software as a Service (SaaS), .NET Framework, Continuous Integration, C#, and JavaScript. He’s also written two books with Packt Publishing: Social Data Visualization with HTML5 and JavaScript and Mastering JavaScript Design Patterns.   Two years ago when Simon was last on The Azure DevOps Podcast, he and Jeffrey discussed Azure Functions and Processes. In their conversation today, they’re focusing on all things microservice-related. Simon has done a lot of work in the space of microservices and has a lot of insight on best practices; when (and when not) to use it; how you run it in production; how to build, test, configure, and deploy; what a visual structure solution looks like for a microservice; how to make a decision if you’re looking at a software system; and much more. If you’ve been wanting to learn more about microservices architecture, this is a not-to-miss episode!   Topics of Discussion: [:38] Be sure to visit AzureDevOps.Show for past episodes and show notes. [1:00] About The Azure DevOps Podcast, Clear Measure, and Jeffrey’s offer to speak at virtual user groups. [1:45] Clear Measure is hiring! Be sure to check out the link in the show notes. [1:55] About Jeffrey’s newest podcast, Architect Tips! [2:19] About today’s episode with Simon Timms. [2:51] Jeffrey welcomes Simon to The Azure DevOps Podcast. [3:38] About today’s discussion with Simon on microservices. [4:54] Microservices: what it is and how it is different from simply splitting up a system into multiple applications. [7:43] Does a microservice architecture have its own version control repository? [8:45] Does Simon tend to have a microservice in its own version control repository, or, does he tend to have many microservices in the same version control repository? [9:38] What are shared dependencies? What does that mean in the context of microservice architecture? [12:26] Key tenets to keep in mind if you’re going to use microservices. [15:09] How to identify if utilizing microservices is the right (or wrong) architecture pattern for what it is that you’re doing. [19:53] A word from Azure DevOps Podcast’s sponsor: Clear Measure. [20:26] What is and isn’t considered a microservice? [25:02] What would cause you to choose one protocol/type of web service/messaging queue over another? [27:40] If Simon was to start a project today, would he say that there is a go-to way to do asynchronous queue-based messaging? [31:35] For someone new to the space of microservices, would Simon recommend NServiceBus as a good start? [33:57] With each different version, do control repositories have their own DevOps pipeline? [34:55] Is there a product or a method that works great when you have half a dozen independent programs running? [38:18] Simon’s recommendations on further resources to check out to learn more. [40:12] Jeffrey thanks Simon for joining the podcast once again!   Mentioned in this Episode: Architect Tips — New video podcast! Azure DevOps Clear Measure (Sponsor) .NET DevOps for Azure: A Developer's Guide to DevOps Architecture the Right Way, by Jeffrey Palermo — Available on Amazon! bit.ly/dotnetdevopsebook — Click here to download the .NET DevOps for Azure ebook! Jeffrey Palermo’s Youtube Jeffrey Palermo’s Twitter — Follow to stay informed about future events! The Azure DevOps Podcast’s Twitter: @AzureDevOpsShow Simon Timms (Blog) Social Data Visualization with HTML5 and JavaScript, by Simon Timms Mastering JavaScript Design Patterns, by Simons Timms Function Junction Youtube Channel ASP.NET Monsters The Azure DevOps Podcast Ep. 23: “Simon Timms on Azure Functions and Processes” NServiceBus Azure Application Insights   Want to Learn More? Visit AzureDevOps.Show for show notes and additional episodes.

Enjoy our presentation of Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda written by Becky Albertalli and published by Balzer & Bray.Sixteen-year-old Simon is a junior in high school, and his year has gotten very complicated. Martin, the class clown, managed to get a screen shot of one of Simon's secret emails, and he's using it as blackmail. If Simon doesn't help Martin out by playing wingman, his email will be revealed and his sexual identity will become everyone's business. And even worse, the privacy of Blue, the pen name of the boy he's been emailing with, will be jeopardized.Simon... has won numerous award and has been been adapted into a major motion picture. It is the first book in the Creekwood Series.This title is recommended for ages 13+ for language, including homophobic language. Please visit Common Sense Media for more information and reviews: http://bit.ly/SimonReviewsSimon... is available in the following formats:Libby Ebook: http://bit.ly/SimonLibbyEbookLibby Audiobook: http://bit.ly/SimonLibbyAudioHoopla Audiobook: http://bit.ly/SimonHooplaAudioPlease visit www.calvertlibrary.info for more information.Music: Sad Clown (excerpt) by Orquesta Arrecife. Licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0 http://www.opsound.org/artist/orquestaarrecife/ 

After he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch.” Simon said in reply, “Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing, but at your command I will lower the nets.” When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing.  Luke 5:4-6“Put out into deep water…”  There is great meaning to this little line.First of all, it’s important to note that the Apostles had fished all night long with no success.  They were most likely disappointed at their lack of fish and were not all that ready to fish some more.  But Jesus directs Simon to do so and he does it.  The result is that they caught more fish than they thought they could handle.But the one piece of symbolic meaning we should not miss is that Jesus tells Simon to put out into the “deep” water.  What does that mean?This passage is not only about the physical miracle of catching fish; rather, it’s much more about the mission of evangelizing souls and accomplishing the mission of God.  And the symbolism of putting out into the deep water tells us that we must be all in and fully committed if we are to evangelize and spread the Word of God as we are called to do.When we listen to God and act on His word, committing ourselves to His will in a radical and deep way, He will produce an abundant catch of souls.  This “catch” will come in an unexpected way at an unexpected time and will clearly be the work of God.  But think about what would have happened if Simon would have laughed and told Jesus, “Sorry, Lord, I’m done fishing for the day.  Maybe tomorrow.”  If Simon would have acted this way he would never have been blessed with this abundant catch.  The same is true with us.  If we fail to listen to the voice of God in our lives, and fail to heed His radical commands, we will not be used in the way He desires to use us.Reflect, today, upon your willingness to act upon the voice of the Savior.  Are you willing to say “Yes” to Him in all things?  Are you willing to radically follow the direction He gives?  If so, you also will be amazed at what He does in your life.Lord, I desire to put out into the deep water and to radically evangelize in the way to which You call me.  Help me to say “Yes” to you in all things.  Jesus, I trust in You.Source of content: catholic-daily-reflections.comCopyright © 2020 My Catholic Life! Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission via RSS feed.

Every week the Distinct Nostalgia Mind of the Month quiz puts a tv, film or radio fan to the test about their chosen specialist subject. Andy Hoyle is your host in this third programme in the second series of the show. Here contestant Simon from Lancaster answers questions about The Avengers. If Simon scores well and ends up in the top two contestants from the 4 programmes across the month, he will take part in a play off around TV, film, radio and entertainment general knowledge. The winner is crowned Distinct Nostalgia Series 2 Mind of the Month and bags a Distinct Nostalgia mug in the process. The Distinct Nostalgia Mind of the Month Quiz is produced by MIM.If you'd like to test your knowledge, go to distinctnostalgia.com and fill in the contact form. The Distinct Nostalgia Theme is composed by Rebecca Applin and Chris Warner

Welcome to this first podcast in a series that I am calling the Every Word Podcast. This is a podcast series for those who enjoy studying details found in God’s Word. In every episode I will read from Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s fresh-sounding translation of the  New Testament. The 2016 2nd edition of this NT was published with the name, “The Sovereign God Has Spoken.” It is available for a free download for the Kindle bool reading app. In today’s episode, I will read and comment on Pickering’s translation of Mark 1:1-28.   This is the kind of podcast where it might be better to look at the episode notes while listening. If you are flying down the freeway right now, just bear it in mind that you may want to check this out later. The full text that I will read is attached, but the attachment can only be found at dailybiblereading.info, not in podcast apps. (Click on the PDF download icon to get the attachment. For Android users, if you use our dedicated Daily Bible Reading app, you can get the PDF by clicking the gift icon.) The prettiest way to read Pickering’s NT is via the Kindle app using a tablet, and it is a free download.   Dr. Pickering’s translation is based on the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament, which is also called the Byzantine Text. I consider the Majority Text to be superior to the Eclectic Greek Text which was used as the basis of most of the translations of the last century. The shift in the Greek text used for our Bible translations began around 1881, with the publication of Wescott and Hort’s Greek New Testament, which was based on an extremely small sampling of manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text Type*— that is from Egypt.  *Footnote: The two are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These are dated at 330-360 AD and 300-325 respectively. At the time Wescott and Hort were working, it was anticipated that research into newly discovered ancient New manuscripts from Egypt would reveal a coherent textual stream that would point to the authentic initial form of the Greek text. Now, over a century later, those ancient Egyptian papyrus manuscripts have been analyzed, but they do not reveal a coherent textual stream that can be followed. Instead the papyri manuscripts reveal that Egyptian scribes very freely edited the texts they copied. In contrast, the Majority Text of the New Testament was made by copyists who lived in the same places as the original recipients of the apostles’ writings. Individual scribal errors have been weeded out, since this text type is based on the majority reading of thousands of Greek manuscripts.   The Majority Text has been stable over the centuries and is the best academically defendable text of the Greek New Testament that we have today. In this podcast, I am trying in a small way to undo the damage caused by Wescott and Hort’s Greek New Testament, which passed a legacy of mistakes down to all succeeding editions of the Eclectic/Critical Greek Text.** The damage I speak of can be found in almost all of the English Bible translations of the last century, starting with the ASV (1901), and including RSV, NASB, NIV, GNT, NLT, NET, and ESV. **Footnote: The Eclectic Text is also called the Critical Text, the Nestle-Aland text, and the United Bible Societies (UBS) Text. The succeeding editions of the Eclectic Text have primarily followed Wescott and Hort, but the apparatus (or footnotes) dealing with textual variations has detailed the other variants found among Alexandrian manuscripts.   I realize that all this stuff I have just tried to explain may ‘sound like Greek to you’. But I promise that the examples I give will be interesting, and you won’t need to know any Greek to understand them. It will be helpful to your understanding if as you listen you are able to see Pickering’s translation beside your own Bible translation while listening to this podcast.    See the attached PDF for all the readings.       1 A beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God! Pickering makes a footnote for many of the textual variants. The Eclectic Text does not include ‘Son of God’, and the Lexham Bible (published by Logos) doesn’t translate ‘Son of God’. But most of the last century’s translations follow the 1901 ASV, including those words with a footnote saying, “Some manuscripts do not include the Son of God.” Actually, it is only one Alexandrian manuscript that doesn’t have the three words. 98.4% of manuscripts have it. Another 0.4 percent have it slightly shortened. Only Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t have it, but it was one of Wescott and Hort’s favorites. So that one manuscript dropping the words has caused a footnote in many of today’s translations. Such footnotes have the unintended effect of causing people to question the accuracy of God’s Word.*** ***Footnote:  I take all percentage information from Pickering’s footnotes in his Greek NT.   What might have guided Wescott and Hort to have left out ‘Son of God’?  Here I quote from Pickering’s article entitled The Root Cause of the continuous defection from Biblical Infallibility: F.J.A. Hort, a quintessential 'son of the disobedience'. Hort did not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since he embraced the Darwinian theory as soon as it appeared, he presumably did not believe in God.2 His theory of NT textual criticism, published in 1881,3 was based squarely on the presuppositions that the NT was not inspired, that no special care was afforded it in the early decades, and that in consequence the original wording was lost—lost beyond recovery, at least by objective means. His theory swept the academic world and continues to dominate the discipline to this day.1   Footnote 2: For documentation of all this, and a good deal more besides, in Hort's own words, please see the biography written by his son. A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort (2 vols.; London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896). The son made heavy use of the father's plentiful correspondence, whom he admired. (In those days a two-volume 'Life', as opposed to a one-volume 'Biography', was a posthumous status symbol, albeit of little consequence to the departed.) Many of my readers were taught, as was I, that one must not question/judge someone else's motives. But wait just a minute; where did such an idea come from? It certainly did not come from God, who expects the spiritual person to evaluate everything (1 Corinthians 2:15). Since there are only two spiritual kingdoms in this world (Matthew 6:24, 12:30; Luke 11:23, 16:13), then the idea comes from the other side. By eliminating motive, one also eliminates presupposition, which is something that God would never do, since presupposition governs interpretation (Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24). Which is why we should always expect a true scholar to state his presuppositions. I have repeatedly stated mine, but here they are again: 1) The Sovereign Creator of the universe exists; 2) He delivered a written revelation to the human race; 3) He has preserved that revelation intact to this day.   2  As it is written in the prophets4— 4 Around 3.3% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘Isaiah the prophet’ instead of ‘the prophets’ (to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). The 96.7% are correct.  ESV ‘As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,’   Here the Majority Text is right with plural ‘prophets’, because two quotes that follow are by two different prophets, Malachi and Isaiah. (Mal. 3:1; Is. 40:3) There are a number of inaccuracies like this that have been introduced in our Bibles because of following the Eclectic Text, and this is a good example of one of them.        10 And immediately upon coming up from11 the water He saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon Him.  11 Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘out of’ instead of ‘from’ (to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.).    This is my own comment, not Pickering’s: The difference here amounts to a difference of two prepositions. The Majority Text has ‘apo’ and the Eclectic Text has ‘ek’. Someone is going to try to use the difference here to show the method of baptism used by John the Baptist. Don’t base any doctrine on Greek prepositions. They have a very wide range of meaning. Neither preposition can be used to prove the depth of the water where Jesus was baptized.       13 And He was there in the wilderness forty days being tested1 by Satan, 1 Our ‘test’ and ‘tempt’ are translations of a single Greek word, the context determining the choice. To tempt is to test in the area of morals. In this context I consider that ‘tempt’ is too limited, but it is included in the wider meaning of 'test'. Note that the Spirit impelled Him, which means that this was a necessary part of the Plan. The three specific tests recorded by Matthew and Luke presumably happened near the end of the forty days.    Pickering here gives an interesting translational note. This is not about a textual difference. I think it interesting and probably right that Satan was doing more than merely tempting Jesus. He was testing Who he was up against.       1:14 Now after John was put in prison,4 Jesus went into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom5 of God, 5 Some 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘of the Kingdom’ (to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.).    ESV ‘gospel of God’   My comment: In the very next verse, Jesus said, “The time has been fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has approached. Repent and believe in the Gospel.” The phrase ‘gospel of God’ (meaning that God owns or sponsors the Gospel) does occur in the Pauline epistles and in 1st Peter, but not in any of the Gospels or Acts. To me, especially because of verse 15, it seems much more fitting for Jesus to specify, ‘Gospel of (or about) the Kingdom of God’.       16 Then, as He was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother, [the son of] of Simon,7 casting a circular net onto the water,8 for they were fishermen.  7 Some 90% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘his brother, of Simon’—presumably a reference to their father. If Peter was the eldest son, he would have been named for his father.    PCF: I think this is an interesting textual variant. If Simon’s father was also named Simon, this part of the story would match the next part where we hear of Zebedee, the father of James and John. If you are looking at the episode notes, you will note that I made a slight alteration to Pickering’s translation. I added the words ‘the son’ before ‘of Simon’, so that the listener will be able to catch the meaning Pickering intends.   When I make alterations like this, I will mark them with brackets. I think the Greek can be understood in the sense ‘his brother— that is Simon’s’. That seems to be the way the World English Bible takes it. (The WEB is another translation of the Majority Text, and it is freely available in many Bible apps.)     23 Now there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 saying: “Hey, what do you want with us, Jesus Natsarene?!13 13 The name of the town in Hebrew is based on the consonants נצר) resh, tsadde, nun), but since Hebrew is read from right to left, for us the order is reversed = n, ts, r. This word root means ‘branch’. Greek has the equivalent for ‘ps’ and ‘ks’, but not for ‘ts’, so the transliteration used a z (zeta) ‘dz’, which is the voiced counterpart of ‘ts’. But when the Greek was transliterated into English it came out as ‘z’! But Hebrew has a ‘z’, ז) zayin), so in transliterating back into Hebrew people assumed the consonants נזר ,replacing the correct tsadde with zayin. Neither ‘Nazareth’ nor ‘Nazarene’, spelled with a zayin, is to be found in the Old Testament, but there is a prophetic reference to Messiah as the Branch, netser—Isaiah 11:1—and several to the related word, tsemach—Isaiah 4:2, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15; Zechariah 3:8, 6:12. So Matthew (2:23) is quite right—the prophets (plural, being at least three) referred to Christ as the Branch. Since Jesus was a man, He would be the ‘Branch-man’, from ‘Branch-town’. Which brings us to the word ‘natsorean’. The familiar ‘Nazarene’ (Nazarhnoj) [Natsarene] occurs in Mark 1:24, 14:67, 16:6 and Luke 4:34, but in Matthew 2:23 and in fourteen other places, including Acts 22:8 where the glorified Jesus calls Himself that, the word is ‘Natsorean’ (Nazwraioj), which is quite different. I have been given to understand that the Natsareth of Jesus’ day had been founded some 100 years before by a Branch family, who called it Branch town; they were very much aware of the prophecies about the Branch and fully expected the Messiah to be born from among them—they called themselves Branch-people (Natsoreans). Of course everyone else thought it was a big joke and tended to look down on them. “Can anything good . . . ?”   PCF: This time Pickering’s note points to a treasure he wants us to understand, not a textual variant. You may have picked up in my pronunciation that Jesus was called the ‘Natsarene’. Pickering’s footnote is long, and I think it would be hard to understand for podcast listeners— who may be going down the freeway at 70 miles an hour. The full footnote, complete with Scripture references, is found in the episode notes. But I will summarize what Pickering is pointing out. In Mark 1:23, the demon called Jesus a ‘Natsarene’, following the spelling in Wilbur Pickering's translation. We all know that Nazarene is normally spelled with a z, but Pickering spells it with ts.    Recall that Matthew (2:23) states, “So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: He (Jesus) will be called a Nazarene.” But the name Nazarene or Nazareth appears nowhere in the Old Testament, so how could this fulfill what plural prophets wrote? Unlike what is often assumed, the name Nazareth has nothing to do with the Old Testament nazarite vow. But in Hebrew, the word meaning ‘branch’ is netser.    Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah (plural prophets) refer to the Messiah as the Branch or Shoot (which is netser or a related word). Isaiah 11:1 is one of those places: Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot — yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. (NLT Isaiah 11:1)   So we might call the original name for Jesus’ hometown as ‘Netser-place’, or Natsereth. But when Natsereth was translated into Greek, the ts became a z, Nazareth. So the cool thing about this is that before Christ came, someone founded a settlement called Branchville. I don't think this happened by accident. At the very least, they named the town with the intent to remind people that God’s promised a Messiah who was given the title, ‘the Righteous Branch’. So it is significant, and a fulfillment of prophecy, that Jesus is called ‘the man from Branchville’.   27 And all were astounded, so that they questioned among themselves, saying: “What is this? What can this new [teaching//doctrine] be?3  Because with authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!” 3 Instead of ‘what can this new [teaching//doctrine] be’, perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, have ‘a new doctrine’ (as in NIV, NASB, LB, etc.).    ESV And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”   The word ‘Because’ is also part of the textual variant. The ESV follows the Eclectic Text, and connects the rather disjointed text so that it makes sense. ESV has an incomplete sentence, ‘A new teaching with authority!’ But the Majority Text includes the verb ‘be’, and a logical connector, ‘for/because’ which renders a much smoother text with complete sentences and good logical flow.       The episode notes for all of the Every Word podcasts will include references to articles that will give further documentation about all of my claims about the Majority Text, the Eclectic Text, and about different Bible translations.   All of Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s works are available at PRUNCH.net. Additionally, his second edition (2016) NT translation is available for a free download via the Kindle app. It is also freely available as a module in the MyBible program for Android and Apple devices. Dr. Pickering named his NT, “The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken.” I have not found where Pickering has explained why he gave his NT translation that title. From the forward, I think that it relates to his opinion that God sovereignly protected the original wording of the New Testament through the best line of Greek manuscripts.* *Footnote: As will be explained in further podcasts, Pickering has chosen a more narrow line of transmission, as found in the F35 family of manuscripts. This is slightly different from the Majority/Byzantine Text Type as published by Robinson and Peerpoint, 2018.   I note further that the title, “The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken,” contains three concepts that were not believed by Wescott and Hort. In their age Darwinism had invaded the church. They did not believe that our Creator created humans as described in Genesis. They did not believe in the sovereignty of God, and nor did they believe that God had actively inspired every word of Scripture and was making sure that every word would be preserved.   One of my favorite verses is in Jeremiah 1:11-12: The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” “I see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied. 12 The Lord said to me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching* to see that my word is fulfilled.” *The footnote says, “The Hebrew for watching sounds like the Hebrew for almond tree.”   God will carry out his threats and his promises.    If God is watching his word to fulfill it like that, it is logical to believe that He also was careful to preserve his Word for us. For the New Testament, God blessed the Majority line of Greek texts so that they predominate and the text has remained unchanged through the centuries. I think it is a good goal to hope for better translations in this century which will preserve every word that should be in the Greek text, and that every word should be translated in a way that fits the English language. As Moses and Jesus said, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by Every Word of God.” (Deut. 8:3; Luk. 4:4)   Let’s pray: Lord, my listener and I want to know You better through your Word, that we may be transformed to obey you from the heart. We thank You for sending the Righteous Branch, Jesus, to be our King, just like the prophets foretold.   Resources: Fields, Philip: Playing Follow the Leader in Bible Translation, 2019, by Phil Fields. See the Resources list in that article for many more helpful articles on the superiority of the Majority Greek Text.   Friberg, Timothy:  On the text of the Greek New Testament that also happens to be the right one for cousin audiences Although the title of this four-page paper refers to translating for Muslims, the principles and summary is widely applicable.  I suggest reading this paper before reading Friberg’s other articles listed below.   Layman’s Guide — A modest explanation for the layman of ideas related to determining the text of the Greek New Testament, 2019.   What is what? — Differences between the Traditional Text and the Bible Society Text of the Greek New Testament. Some data for the reader to weigh, 2019.   Pickering, Wilbur: New Translation of the New Testament: The Sovereign Creator has Spoken Greek Text of the New Testament based on Family 35   Articles and other major works: See PRUNCH.net. Robinson, Maurice: The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, 1991, 2005, 2018.  This is available in free digital form in the MyBible Bible app, and in other ways.   Article: Full Text of the 105 verses lacking overall Greek Manuscript Support in the NA edition 27

Welcome to this first podcast in a series that I am calling the Every Word Podcast. This is a podcast series for those who enjoy studying details found in God’s Word. In every episode I will read from Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s fresh-sounding translation of the  New Testament. The 2016 2nd edition of this NT was published with the name, “The Sovereign God Has Spoken.” It is available for a free download for the Kindle bool reading app. In today’s episode, I will read and comment on Pickering’s translation of Mark 1:1-28.   This is the kind of podcast where it might be better to look at the episode notes while listening. If you are flying down the freeway right now, just bear it in mind that you may want to check this out later. The full text that I will read is attached, but the attachment can only be found at dailybiblereading.info, not in podcast apps. (Click on the PDF download icon to get the attachment. For Android users, if you use our dedicated Daily Bible Reading app, you can get the PDF by clicking the gift icon.) The prettiest way to read Pickering’s NT is via the Kindle app using a tablet, and it is a free download.   Dr. Pickering’s translation is based on the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament, which is also called the Byzantine Text. I consider the Majority Text to be superior to the Eclectic Greek Text which was used as the basis of most of the translations of the last century. The shift in the Greek text used for our Bible translations began around 1881, with the publication of Wescott and Hort’s Greek New Testament, which was based on an extremely small sampling of manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text Type*— that is from Egypt.  *Footnote: The two are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These are dated at 330-360 AD and 300-325 respectively. At the time Wescott and Hort were working, it was anticipated that research into newly discovered ancient New manuscripts from Egypt would reveal a coherent textual stream that would point to the authentic initial form of the Greek text. Now, over a century later, those ancient Egyptian papyrus manuscripts have been analyzed, but they do not reveal a coherent textual stream that can be followed. Instead the papyri manuscripts reveal that Egyptian scribes very freely edited the texts they copied. In contrast, the Majority Text of the New Testament was made by copyists who lived in the same places as the original recipients of the apostles’ writings. Individual scribal errors have been weeded out, since this text type is based on the majority reading of thousands of Greek manuscripts.   The Majority Text has been stable over the centuries and is the best academically defendable text of the Greek New Testament that we have today. In this podcast, I am trying in a small way to undo the damage caused by Wescott and Hort’s Greek New Testament, which passed a legacy of mistakes down to all succeeding editions of the Eclectic/Critical Greek Text.** The damage I speak of can be found in almost all of the English Bible translations of the last century, starting with the ASV (1901), and including RSV, NASB, NIV, GNT, NLT, NET, and ESV. **Footnote: The Eclectic Text is also called the Critical Text, the Nestle-Aland text, and the United Bible Societies (UBS) Text. The succeeding editions of the Eclectic Text have primarily followed Wescott and Hort, but the apparatus (or footnotes) dealing with textual variations has detailed the other variants found among Alexandrian manuscripts.   I realize that all this stuff I have just tried to explain may ‘sound like Greek to you’. But I promise that the examples I give will be interesting, and you won’t need to know any Greek to understand them. It will be helpful to your understanding if as you listen you are able to see Pickering’s translation beside your own Bible translation while listening to this podcast.    See the attached PDF for all the readings.       1 A beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God! Pickering makes a footnote for many of the textual variants. The Eclectic Text does not include ‘Son of God’, and the Lexham Bible (published by Logos) doesn’t translate ‘Son of God’. But most of the last century’s translations follow the 1901 ASV, including those words with a footnote saying, “Some manuscripts do not include the Son of God.” Actually, it is only one Alexandrian manuscript that doesn’t have the three words. 98.4% of manuscripts have it. Another 0.4 percent have it slightly shortened. Only Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t have it, but it was one of Wescott and Hort’s favorites. So that one manuscript dropping the words has caused a footnote in many of today’s translations. Such footnotes have the unintended effect of causing people to question the accuracy of God’s Word.*** ***Footnote:  I take all percentage information from Pickering’s footnotes in his Greek NT.   What might have guided Wescott and Hort to have left out ‘Son of God’?  Here I quote from Pickering’s article entitled The Root Cause of the continuous defection from Biblical Infallibility: F.J.A. Hort, a quintessential 'son of the disobedience'. Hort did not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since he embraced the Darwinian theory as soon as it appeared, he presumably did not believe in God.2 His theory of NT textual criticism, published in 1881,3 was based squarely on the presuppositions that the NT was not inspired, that no special care was afforded it in the early decades, and that in consequence the original wording was lost—lost beyond recovery, at least by objective means. His theory swept the academic world and continues to dominate the discipline to this day.1   Footnote 2: For documentation of all this, and a good deal more besides, in Hort's own words, please see the biography written by his son. A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort (2 vols.; London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896). The son made heavy use of the father's plentiful correspondence, whom he admired. (In those days a two-volume 'Life', as opposed to a one-volume 'Biography', was a posthumous status symbol, albeit of little consequence to the departed.) Many of my readers were taught, as was I, that one must not question/judge someone else's motives. But wait just a minute; where did such an idea come from? It certainly did not come from God, who expects the spiritual person to evaluate everything (1 Corinthians 2:15). Since there are only two spiritual kingdoms in this world (Matthew 6:24, 12:30; Luke 11:23, 16:13), then the idea comes from the other side. By eliminating motive, one also eliminates presupposition, which is something that God would never do, since presupposition governs interpretation (Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24). Which is why we should always expect a true scholar to state his presuppositions. I have repeatedly stated mine, but here they are again: 1) The Sovereign Creator of the universe exists; 2) He delivered a written revelation to the human race; 3) He has preserved that revelation intact to this day.   2  As it is written in the prophets4— 4 Around 3.3% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘Isaiah the prophet’ instead of ‘the prophets’ (to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). The 96.7% are correct.  ESV ‘As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,’   Here the Majority Text is right with plural ‘prophets’, because two quotes that follow are by two different prophets, Malachi and Isaiah. (Mal. 3:1; Is. 40:3) There are a number of inaccuracies like this that have been introduced in our Bibles because of following the Eclectic Text, and this is a good example of one of them.        10 And immediately upon coming up from11 the water He saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon Him.  11 Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘out of’ instead of ‘from’ (to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.).    This is my own comment, not Pickering’s: The difference here amounts to a difference of two prepositions. The Majority Text has ‘apo’ and the Eclectic Text has ‘ek’. Someone is going to try to use the difference here to show the method of baptism used by John the Baptist. Don’t base any doctrine on Greek prepositions. They have a very wide range of meaning. Neither preposition can be used to prove the depth of the water where Jesus was baptized.       13 And He was there in the wilderness forty days being tested1 by Satan, 1 Our ‘test’ and ‘tempt’ are translations of a single Greek word, the context determining the choice. To tempt is to test in the area of morals. In this context I consider that ‘tempt’ is too limited, but it is included in the wider meaning of 'test'. Note that the Spirit impelled Him, which means that this was a necessary part of the Plan. The three specific tests recorded by Matthew and Luke presumably happened near the end of the forty days.    Pickering here gives an interesting translational note. This is not about a textual difference. I think it interesting and probably right that Satan was doing more than merely tempting Jesus. He was testing Who he was up against.       1:14 Now after John was put in prison,4 Jesus went into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom5 of God, 5 Some 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘of the Kingdom’ (to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.).    ESV ‘gospel of God’   My comment: In the very next verse, Jesus said, “The time has been fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has approached. Repent and believe in the Gospel.” The phrase ‘gospel of God’ (meaning that God owns or sponsors the Gospel) does occur in the Pauline epistles and in 1st Peter, but not in any of the Gospels or Acts. To me, especially because of verse 15, it seems much more fitting for Jesus to specify, ‘Gospel of (or about) the Kingdom of God’.       16 Then, as He was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother, [the son of] of Simon,7 casting a circular net onto the water,8 for they were fishermen.  7 Some 90% of the Greek manuscripts have ‘his brother, of Simon’—presumably a reference to their father. If Peter was the eldest son, he would have been named for his father.    PCF: I think this is an interesting textual variant. If Simon’s father was also named Simon, this part of the story would match the next part where we hear of Zebedee, the father of James and John. If you are looking at the episode notes, you will note that I made a slight alteration to Pickering’s translation. I added the words ‘the son’ before ‘of Simon’, so that the listener will be able to catch the meaning Pickering intends.   When I make alterations like this, I will mark them with brackets. I think the Greek can be understood in the sense ‘his brother— that is Simon’s’. That seems to be the way the World English Bible takes it. (The WEB is another translation of the Majority Text, and it is freely available in many Bible apps.)     23 Now there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 saying: “Hey, what do you want with us, Jesus Natsarene?!13 13 The name of the town in Hebrew is based on the consonants נצר) resh, tsadde, nun), but since Hebrew is read from right to left, for us the order is reversed = n, ts, r. This word root means ‘branch’. Greek has the equivalent for ‘ps’ and ‘ks’, but not for ‘ts’, so the transliteration used a z (zeta) ‘dz’, which is the voiced counterpart of ‘ts’. But when the Greek was transliterated into English it came out as ‘z’! But Hebrew has a ‘z’, ז) zayin), so in transliterating back into Hebrew people assumed the consonants נזר ,replacing the correct tsadde with zayin. Neither ‘Nazareth’ nor ‘Nazarene’, spelled with a zayin, is to be found in the Old Testament, but there is a prophetic reference to Messiah as the Branch, netser—Isaiah 11:1—and several to the related word, tsemach—Isaiah 4:2, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15; Zechariah 3:8, 6:12. So Matthew (2:23) is quite right—the prophets (plural, being at least three) referred to Christ as the Branch. Since Jesus was a man, He would be the ‘Branch-man’, from ‘Branch-town’. Which brings us to the word ‘natsorean’. The familiar ‘Nazarene’ (Nazarhnoj) [Natsarene] occurs in Mark 1:24, 14:67, 16:6 and Luke 4:34, but in Matthew 2:23 and in fourteen other places, including Acts 22:8 where the glorified Jesus calls Himself that, the word is ‘Natsorean’ (Nazwraioj), which is quite different. I have been given to understand that the Natsareth of Jesus’ day had been founded some 100 years before by a Branch family, who called it Branch town; they were very much aware of the prophecies about the Branch and fully expected the Messiah to be born from among them—they called themselves Branch-people (Natsoreans). Of course everyone else thought it was a big joke and tended to look down on them. “Can anything good . . . ?”   PCF: This time Pickering’s note points to a treasure he wants us to understand, not a textual variant. You may have picked up in my pronunciation that Jesus was called the ‘Natsarene’. Pickering’s footnote is long, and I think it would be hard to understand for podcast listeners— who may be going down the freeway at 70 miles an hour. The full footnote, complete with Scripture references, is found in the episode notes. But I will summarize what Pickering is pointing out. In Mark 1:23, the demon called Jesus a ‘Natsarene’, following the spelling in Wilbur Pickering's translation. We all know that Nazarene is normally spelled with a z, but Pickering spells it with ts.    Recall that Matthew (2:23) states, “So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: He (Jesus) will be called a Nazarene.” But the name Nazarene or Nazareth appears nowhere in the Old Testament, so how could this fulfill what plural prophets wrote? Unlike what is often assumed, the name Nazareth has nothing to do with the Old Testament nazarite vow. But in Hebrew, the word meaning ‘branch’ is netser.    Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah (plural prophets) refer to the Messiah as the Branch or Shoot (which is netser or a related word). Isaiah 11:1 is one of those places: Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot — yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. (NLT Isaiah 11:1)   So we might call the original name for Jesus’ hometown as ‘Netser-place’, or Natsereth. But when Natsereth was translated into Greek, the ts became a z, Nazareth. So the cool thing about this is that before Christ came, someone founded a settlement called Branchville. I don't think this happened by accident. At the very least, they named the town with the intent to remind people that God’s promised a Messiah who was given the title, ‘the Righteous Branch’. So it is significant, and a fulfillment of prophecy, that Jesus is called ‘the man from Branchville’.   27 And all were astounded, so that they questioned among themselves, saying: “What is this? What can this new [teaching//doctrine] be?3  Because with authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!” 3 Instead of ‘what can this new [teaching//doctrine] be’, perhaps 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, have ‘a new doctrine’ (as in NIV, NASB, LB, etc.).    ESV And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”   The word ‘Because’ is also part of the textual variant. The ESV follows the Eclectic Text, and connects the rather disjointed text so that it makes sense. ESV has an incomplete sentence, ‘A new teaching with authority!’ But the Majority Text includes the verb ‘be’, and a logical connector, ‘for/because’ which renders a much smoother text with complete sentences and good logical flow.       The episode notes for all of the Every Word podcasts will include references to articles that will give further documentation about all of my claims about the Majority Text, the Eclectic Text, and about different Bible translations.   All of Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s works are available at PRUNCH.net. Additionally, his second edition (2016) NT translation is available for a free download via the Kindle app. It is also freely available as a module in the MyBible program for Android and Apple devices. Dr. Pickering named his NT, “The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken.” I have not found where Pickering has explained why he gave his NT translation that title. From the forward, I think that it relates to his opinion that God sovereignly protected the original wording of the New Testament through the best line of Greek manuscripts.* *Footnote: As will be explained in further podcasts, Pickering has chosen a more narrow line of transmission, as found in the F35 family of manuscripts. This is slightly different from the Majority/Byzantine Text Type as published by Robinson and Peerpoint, 2018.   I note further that the title, “The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken,” contains three concepts that were not believed by Wescott and Hort. In their age Darwinism had invaded the church. They did not believe that our Creator created humans as described in Genesis. They did not believe in the sovereignty of God, and nor did they believe that God had actively inspired every word of Scripture and was making sure that every word would be preserved.   One of my favorite verses is in Jeremiah 1:11-12: The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” “I see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied. 12 The Lord said to me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching* to see that my word is fulfilled.” *The footnote says, “The Hebrew for watching sounds like the Hebrew for almond tree.”   God will carry out his threats and his promises.    If God is watching his word to fulfill it like that, it is logical to believe that He also was careful to preserve his Word for us. For the New Testament, God blessed the Majority line of Greek texts so that they predominate and the text has remained unchanged through the centuries. I think it is a good goal to hope for better translations in this century which will preserve every word that should be in the Greek text, and that every word should be translated in a way that fits the English language. As Moses and Jesus said, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by Every Word of God.” (Deut. 8:3; Luk. 4:4)   Let’s pray: Lord, my listener and I want to know You better through your Word, that we may be transformed to obey you from the heart. We thank You for sending the Righteous Branch, Jesus, to be our King, just like the prophets foretold.   Resources: Fields, Philip: Playing Follow the Leader in Bible Translation, 2019, by Phil Fields. See the Resources list in that article for many more helpful articles on the superiority of the Majority Greek Text.   Friberg, Timothy:  On the text of the Greek New Testament that also happens to be the right one for cousin audiences Although the title of this four-page paper refers to translating for Muslims, the principles and summary is widely applicable.  I suggest reading this paper before reading Friberg’s other articles listed below.   Layman’s Guide — A modest explanation for the layman of ideas related to determining the text of the Greek New Testament, 2019.   What is what? — Differences between the Traditional Text and the Bible Society Text of the Greek New Testament. Some data for the reader to weigh, 2019.   Pickering, Wilbur: New Translation of the New Testament: The Sovereign Creator has Spoken Greek Text of the New Testament based on Family 35   Articles and other major works: See PRUNCH.net. Robinson, Maurice: The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, 1991, 2005, 2018.  This is available in free digital form in the MyBible Bible app, and in other ways.   Article: Full Text of the 105 verses lacking overall Greek Manuscript Support in the NA edition 27

Hello and welcome to season 2 episode 54 of The Berean Manifesto, brought to you by The Ekklesian House.  This is Pastor Bill and over the next 10 minutes or so we are going to be continuing our four-part series in 1 Corinthians 13:7, “(Love) bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things.”  In the first part of this series, we talked about love bearing all things with the ultimate expression of that being Christ bearing our sins on the cross and likewise we too should be bearing each-other up in love when we fail; more or less carrying one another towards the mark of perfection.  In part two we talked about believing the best of others and for the Christian, this being a natural extension of our faith in Christ.  Like God sees the best in all of us and puts us in positions to rise to the greatest occasion we should give others cause to rise to the occasion.   I highly recommend you go back to the first and second parts before proceeding, if you haven't already.  Especially part two, “Love Believes,” because this episode relies, and builds upon that one.  It might also benefit you to go back and look at episode 2.25 where we talk about the nature of hope.  A quick primer is that when you see the word hope in the New Testament it is either a word that means trust or confident expectation.  Sometimes with both words in the same sentence with both translated into the English word hope.  In this case, Paul has chosen the hope word for trust in 1 Corinthians 13:7.    Let's look at an event in Jesus' life, Luke 7:36-50 CSB, “[36] Then one of the Pharisees invited him to eat with him. He entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. [37] And a woman in the town who was a sinner found out that Jesus was reclining at the table in the Pharisee's house. She brought an alabaster jar of perfume [38] and stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to wash his feet with her tears. She wiped his feet with her hair, kissing them and anointing them with the perfume. [39] When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "This man, if he were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him-she's a sinner!" [40] Jesus replied to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." He said, "Say it, teacher." [41] "A creditor had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. [42] Since they could not pay it back, he graciously forgave them both. So, which of them will love him more?" [43] Simon answered, "I suppose the one he forgave more." "You have judged correctly," he told him. [44] Turning to the woman, he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she, with her tears, has washed my feet and wiped them with her hair. [45] You gave me no kiss, but she hasn't stopped kissing my feet since I came in. [46] You didn't anoint my head with olive oil, but she has anointed my feet with perfume. [47] Therefore I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; that's why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little." [48] Then he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." [49] Those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this man who even forgives sins?" [50] And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.'”   Alright, let's start with the seeming disconnect that a Pharisee, despite what it could do to his position and reputation, has invited Jesus to dinner at his house.  There are lots of theories about this that you can go look up.  However, it seems to me there is an explanation that we can glean from scripture.  Four times in the Gospel of John we are told that Judas Iscariot is the son of Simon, with no explanation as to who this Simon is, but written with an expectation that we should just understand the reference.  Lots of theologians have spent countless hours proving that the Simon who fathered Judas is not Simon Peter, obviously to protect Peters' legacy.  If Simon the Pharisee is the father of Judas referenced in the Gospel of John, then the dinner invitation of Jesus, the teacher his son Judas is following, makes complete sense and would also explain why John didn't specify which Simon he was talking about, and Luke felt no explanation of the curious dinner invitation was needed since all of those details would be pretty common knowledge of the day.   So, this Pharisee is hosting Jesus at a meal and in wanders a well-known “sinner.”  She hears Jesus is at Simon the Pharisees house, so she buys this expensive myrrh that some have valued at a years' worth of wages and heads to the feet of Jesus.  This is only possible because it was common for Jewish households to leave the door open during meals so that if passersby wanted to pop in and join the conversation of those at the table then they were welcome.  Even a popular “sinner” like this one.  She's there crying, using her hair and tears to wash Jesus' feet, and then anointing them with the oil.  Simon looks at her and thinks that surely if Jesus was a prophet then he would see through this THOT at his feet and tell her to be gone.   Jesus believes the best for, and in, Simon, and He has put that belief in action with hope-trust accepting this dinner invitation because of it.  Jesus also believes the best for, and in, the woman anointing His feet.  Before He acts on her behalf He decides to put the Pharisee in his place, an activity that seems to be an entertaining past-time for Christ, and points out that where Simon didn't follow the custom of providing water for honored guests to clean their feet upon entering the house she is cleaning His feet with her tears and hair.  Where Simon didn't greet his guest with the customary kiss of brotherhood when Jesus entered, she continually kissed His feet.  Where Simon hasn't recognized Jesus as the Messiah – the leader of the Jewish people, the prophesied savior of their people, she has anointed His feet with the myrrh.  After pointing these things out Jesus acts on His hope-trust for her and tells her that her sins have been forgiven and to go in peace.   Love bears, we talked about that.  Love believes, we've covered that.  Love hopes, or more specifically trusts.  But that trust can't truly be given until we believe first.  The trust of love is a natural action in response to the belief of love.  Jesus believed in Simon the Pharisee to rise to the occasion and be the best that he could be and trusted him accepting his invitation to a meal at his house.  Jesus believed in the woman at his feet that she had risen to the occasion and trusted her faith to carry her forward.   We must bear the weaknesses of fellow believers, not to cover them up, but to carry each-other towards healing and Christ. We must believe the best of and in others giving them space to rise to the occasion.  We must hope-trust out of our belief in others.  We must love.   This is Pastor Bill saying, “Until next time…”

Simon Crosby has made a career of technology on the edge. From leading the charge with the Xen hypervisor to microVMs with Bromium and much more in between, Crosby has led some of the most innovative technology developers in the industry. He is now the CTO of SWIM.ai which is literally brining computing to the edge (almost an anti-cloud. This approach promises some revolutionary capabilities. If Simon is involved there is a good chance it will succeed as well. Have a listen to what Simon is all about now and check our more at https://www.swim.ai/

Have you ever wondered what it's like to sit down and go deep with a Covert Ops Commander? Well, this Thursday on Making Life Brighter Radio is your chance! Join host, Winifred Adams, as she sits down with Counter Intelligence Commander and one of Her Majesty's most trusted Interrogators/ Under Cover Agent, Mr. Simon Treselyan. From Covert Operations the likes of 007, to Spiritual and Inspirational Warrior, Mr. Simon Treselyan is like no other. Find out what it's like to be one of the highest skilled human beings on the planet only to turn that skill into an inspiring and uplifting assistance to mankind. If Simon is not assisting in nailing the bad guys who are child trafficking, he is penning more books which may soon be coming to a cinema near you, or speaking to audiences showing them how they can optimize their potential as a human being! Go To: www.makinglifebrighter.com for a SPECIAL OUTTAKE, post show! https://www.voiceamerica.com/show/2366/making-life-brighter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Will Rachel be as grumpy about the Switch as she was last week? Has John changed his mind about it again? What did Miguel think of Halo Wars 2 when he played it? If Simon hates horror games so much, how is Rachel going to get him to play Resident Evil 7 on a livestream next week? Is Ghost Recon Wildlands something really special? What's a "gacha" mechanic? All these questions answered and more. 

Climate Change—what’s faith got to do with it? To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and respond to a rapidly changing planet, people of faith and religious leaders play essential roles. Citizens’ Climate Radio host, Peterson Toscano, introduces you to two people of faith who are active climate advocates. Main Section Rachel Lamb, an American, is the national organizer and spokesperson with Young Evangelicals for Climate Action. David Michael Terungwa, a Catholic from Nigeria, is a leader in the African GREEN Movement and Africa Regional Coordinator for Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Both Rachel and David Michael stand as witnesses to their communities about the dangers of climate change and the need to act. The Art House In the Art House we conduct an audio brain experiment. What will they be saying about us in the future? We take a trip to the future to look back at the present day about the role that Christian missionaries can take as witnesses to their churches at home about how climate change affects the people in the countries where they serve. Citizens' Climate Puzzler Also, we review listeners' answers to the Citizens’ Climate Puzzler and introduce a new puzzler. Citizens Climate Puzzler. Check it out and and send us your best answer. You are talking to someone who you think could be an effective climate advocate. This may be a lawmaker, a faith leader, or a friend. After sharing your passion and what you are doing to address climate change, the person you are talking to, let’s call him Simon, shrugs and replies. What difference does it make if we do something in our country when it’s China that’s doing most of the polluting? Now Simon’s answer sounds to me like a very American reaction. If Simon does not live in the USA, he might instead ask: Why on earth should we do anything when the USA has done much of the polluting and is doing so little to act? In addition to his actual question—why should my country do something when others do not--what do you hear in Simon’s words? What emotions, fears and beliefs might his question reveal? How might you answer Simon’s question while also addressing what is unsaid. Get back to Peterson by September 15th, 2016. You can email your answers to radio @ citizensclimate.org You can also text leave a voicemail at 570.483.8194. (+1 if calling from outside the USA.) He will then share the best answers in our next episode which airs September 26, 2016. Help Spread the Word! Citizens’ Climate Radio is available on podbean, iTunes, and Stitcher Radio. Please rate and review. If you like what you hear, please share the show with your friends. Citizens’ Climate Radio is a project of Citizens’ Climate Education. All music is royalty free and purchased thorough PremiumBeat.com and AudioBlocks

In One Life Left's experience* there are three sorts of letters that come in card-backed brown paper envelopes.1) Signed contracts from the BBC offering million pounds to transfer our special brand of broadcast magic to Radio 4,2) Legal threats from easily offended games industry professionals who we might have erm accidentally defamed or you know whatever,3) Glossy, black and white spy photos of the team being touched in and / or touching at least four separate places.Imagine the rush when we arrived at the studio to find a brown, card-backed envelope waiting for us. Real post! Addressed to us c/o Resonance! Without us ever giving out the address! This could be great! Or terrible!Experience the thrill with us as we bite our lips and open it live on air.Oh yeah, there's other stuff that's actually games-related too. For example, Dan Griliopoulos, Reviews Editor at Official Xbox Magazine as recently as last week and now A Free Man, breaks his monastic silence on the things that matter. Like how you really pronounce Koch, whether Mass Effect is just one long corridor after another, and what happens when games journalists stop journalising.Actually, it's something of a reviews special this week as we cover Call of Duty 3, Super Mario Galaxy, that new Metroid one on the Wii which one would assume is exactly like every other 3D Metroid game ie a lifetime of scanning, Zoo Tycoon on the DS (?!) and whatever Ann's been playing. Ann? Ann?Oh whatever. Ignore her, ane enjoy the two comebacks from people you might have thought gone forever, and the moment when finally, finally, we get someone on the phone.Important things we forgot to do across the hour of :1) The Jade Raymond thing. We'll do that next week.2) The Facebook 'secret' thing. We will probably just announce this on Facebook this week even though we forgot to trail it. But we'll talk about it next week for sure.3) A 'write to us about this'   for the letters section. Jesus Christ, it's not rocket science. Next week, next week.4) Credit the music. It was CFCF's remix of Justice's D.A.N.C.E. and 6955's awesome 'Museum'.Thanks for listening. Join us next week for more things we haven't really thought through, including attempted Skype-with-a-Developer nonsense and a non-Ann-art related competition and ANOTHER feature resurrection. See you!* ImaginationSort of handy links:One Life Left Facebook GroupOne Life Left MyspaceOne Life Left ForumAnd email us at team@onelifeleft.com about anything, really.If Ste sounds angry it's because he had a terrible sandwich in Costa before the show. If Ann sounds angry it's because she's trying to work out what 'bitchkrieg' means. If Simon sounds angry it's because Ste is gesturing. Levels are a bit all over the place again this week, apologies for that.