Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Advanced search

1083550 Posts in 71818 Topics- by 19121 Members - Latest Member: ohheckingheck
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumRecent Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
 on: Today at 02:37 PM 
Started by Russ White - Last post by bhcordova
He has to reverse everything that uppity n***** did so he can save rich white Americans

 on: Today at 02:12 PM 
Started by jbeckett - Last post by JohnL
If the string breaks, be sure to check the edges of the string holes before you re-string.  They are supposed to be chamfered.  The screws that clamp them are supposed to have the edges eased also.  When both of those are done, the strings go years and years before failing.
I bought my Benge 290 new from a local store years ago. I pretty much had to restring the stupid thing every time I played it; there was a burr in one of the holes. Tried to get the store to fix it, but finally gave up and had a ball-and-socket conversion done.

 on: Today at 02:10 PM 
Started by SKAzz - Last post by Pre59
I'm pretty sure he had the skb and got a rath. He's just saying the raths wingnut is the reason it won't fit. Not that Michael Rath is a bad designer for not making a horn that can fit in a particular case

Yes, the wing nut could have been better designed to fit at a different angle and/or shape. I had already owned a SKB 360 case because I was flying to meet cruise ships and sharing cars etc. I didn't want to have to have a bulkier case to fit a smaller instrument because of a simple fixing.

A bigger issue though, is that it's ok to criticise a feature of a product if it doesn't suit you, and I did voice my opinion to Rath management at the time.

 on: Today at 02:00 PM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by drizabone
Maybe. But he wasn't thinking it consistently between Matthew and Mark. The abiding impression I'm left with is that he did the chapter-breaking work in a hurry...

I agree

At this point we need to consider the authorships of these texts, I think, although making original deductions of our own is sadly beyond our current personal state of knowledge. In holding that these are eyewitness accounts by the disciple Matthew and Paul's assistant John Mark (as I think you do?), you go against all but the scholars who go out of their way not to challenge traditionalist beliefs. Who are a group who, as I've said here before, it is hard to trust unless one is as keen to preserve traditionalist interpretations as they are. Which is pretty extraordinarily keen!

I think that John Mark was Peter's assistant and was reporting his account.

I didn't think I was being that radical.  Maybe I just read different scholars than you're familiar with.

Here's an interesting discussion of "taking the bible literally" https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/02/07/do-you-literally-interpret-the-bible-literally/
which refers to an older paper which I think is worth reading too.  It basically says that we normally use words in different ways, not just in its most concrete definition, and the bible reflects this.

I'm probably conservative in my understanding of the bible but not necessarily traditionalist, unless they are my traditions. :)

I agree that if the gospels are eyewitness accounts, it isn't hard to point to human fallibility in resolving inconsistencies in general. I guess my general question here is: Doesn't Christianity tell us to hold these books to a higher standard than that?

I don't mean they got it wrong, or mis-remembered, but that they were experiencing a different part of the conversation.  I see Jesus group, walking along the road, at least 13 of them, but probably more, having different converstations, overhearing parts of others and some going off onto related tracks, some only hearing part of the conversation...  So in the case of the discussion of 'who is the greatest' a few of the disciples may have been more ambitious than others and wanted to be top dog.  Others were just listening and wondering how it was going to work and talking about who in the top group (probably Peter, John and James) were more important.  So depending which group you were in you would have different perspective on the episode.  So I think that while each account was true account, they could also be true a bit different.  But I think that God is managing the whole thing so that no account tells something that is wrong.

But then - you use the independence of the two as supposed eyewitness accounts by different people to argue for omissions that weren't observed by one or the other. However, I don't think this can stack up - they share so many verses (by Wikipedia's count ~600 of Mark's 661 verses are found in Matthew). There's just no way that neither of these were compiled with reference to the other.

I think that Matthew used Mark's text and built on that.  Matthew added or changed some things where he wanted to emphasise a point differently to Mark.  But I don't think (in an a priori way) that his changes were incompatible with what happened or were said.  I think I'm being consistent, haven't done a formal analysis of me.

By the by, there's no particularly obvious place to drop these in, but here are a couple of interesting comparative lists on Wikipedia that I found while reading up for this segment of reply:
Comparative list of the twelve disciples/apostles
Comparative list of ordered gospel events between M, M, L, and J

Regarding the first, it is interesting to observe that there are a couple of disciples whose names are disagreed on by the gospel writers: Bartholomew (Nathanael in John) and Thaddaeus (Judas/Jude in Luke, John, Acts; Lebbaeus Thaddaeus in Matthew). How do fans of infallibility resolve this?

I'll take that question on notice.  Remind me if I forget about it.

Regarding the second, it's most interesting to see how the different gospel writers have ordered their material.  No one gospel in this list has its contents listed in written order throughout, although in all four there is broad progression from start to finish as the list moves through time. Do fans of infallibility think that the gospels are chronological narratives? I'm not sure if they do or not. It's a basic assumption of any storytelling text unless explicitly stated otherwise, but we can see from this list that that isn't possible.

I think your understanding that the gospels have a narrative flow but aren't in exact chronological order is right.

I don't think this is a problem, they were telling the gospel not primarily a chronological historical account, although the gospel is based in history.


It's "but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again?" that is puzzling. It sounds like an admonition against overdoing something good, thus turning it into something bad ("Add the right amount of salt to your food, but not so much that you have to add more every day" style of thing). But how does it bear on the passage? Have I simply misread it somehow?

I don't think you have misread it.  I don't understand the detail either.

Children are like a sponge. They soak up what they're told, and what they're told earliest goes in deepest. And so we seek to only tell them things that are certain at this stage. Of course, life and childrearing are not so simple in reality, but we aspire not to tell them things that they might need to get rid of later, at the cost of personal mental hardship.

they don't just soak up what their told but what they see us do and to a great extent what they see in the world around them.  Society/tv/school has a huge influence on them, regardless what we tell them.

I read somewhere that a person learns half of their knowledge by the time they are 2.  It wasn't on the internet but it might still be right.


Sure. Example A right here. Though I was dropped into it a little older than many - 8 or so. Still it felt a socially very difficult thing to step away from it as a teenager. If I'd been a less self-willed person, then I might still be there, though I'd have had to reconcile some sharp mental oppositions in the process, as many do.

I remembered that.

Yeah, we definitely have. But the point of this exercise wasn't to produce a comprehensive survey of Christian doctrine, it was to read this book, in any way that the posters engaging happen to see fit. I'm very happy with how it's turned out as a thread project - these days I keep finding myself pointing real-life friends to it as an example of internet forum co-operation on this particular contentious subject...

interesting.  my friends eyes glaze over when I tell them about my trombone forum project

 on: Today at 01:33 PM 
Started by Bach42T - Last post by Don Draper
I have one I purchased after trying various iterations of the Shires and Edwards.  The finalists for my search were the Alessi model Edwards and the Yamaha Anniversary model.  In blind tests my friends chose the Yamaha (for my playing style).  The feel is very close, neither one better, just different. 

I must say I also saved $2000 by purchasing the Yamaha.  I had the money for either, so that was not a factor to me.

BTW, Yamaha wins hands down when it comes to cases.....


 on: Today at 01:25 PM 
Started by Bleek - Last post by cigmar
But on trombone itís a strange angle with no real visual reference on the horn. And each horn is held at a different angle depending on trigger/no trigger etc.

And if you happen to hold the horn at a slightly different angle the next time you put it on your face after coming in off rests I imagine it would mess up the whole alignment thing and consequently the playing.  Yes/No???

 on: Today at 01:14 PM 
Started by Bellend - Last post by Bellend
Nice clip of the Dorsey band playing Song of India.

Buddy Rich drums and Ziggy Elman trumpet

And just for good measure here's Hawian war Chant


..... Enjoy


 on: Today at 01:04 PM 
Started by Bleek - Last post by Bleek
Thanks guys. Matt yes I also have a bit of Teflon tape on my joins as well. For me itís just so things donít Ďfreezeí into place and I can screw it  apart if needed without using pliers or a wooden mallet to loosen.

As for the positioning of the Wedge rim I think Dr Dave says there is a 10% variation possible on its  orientation. But to be honest it works for me straight up and down. So I like to just put the mouthpiece in the horn in the same spot every time and not worry about how off center it is. So unless something better comes up Iíll keep lining up my two Sharpie marks.

It would be great for Dave to come up with a locking sleeve system or something. On trumpet itís easy to align the rim properly, itís up and down. But on trombone itís a strange angle with no real visual reference on the horn. And each horn is held at a different angle depending on trigger/no trigger etc.

 on: Today at 12:51 PM 
Started by demaxx1 - Last post by bassclef
The guy in the middle is Lewis Kahn and the guy on the far end is Barry Rogers Jimmy Bosch.  Quite an all-star section.

Fixed that for you.

 on: Today at 12:46 PM 
Started by slide advantage - Last post by BGuttman
Probably the fake Renoir Evil :-P

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10