RicOlie_2

I'm jealous.

TIMELINE-3

PODD

May 1529

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS

Sultan Süleyman and his army do not experience heavy rains on their march to Vienna, and consequently are not forced to leave most of their siege weapons behind due to the difficulty of dragging them through mud. They reach Vienna in mid September and besiege the city. The Ottomans triumph, conquering Vienna. After a few months of amassing forces and warding off attacks from the Germans, the Ottomans begin conquering Europe, taking over most of the Holy Roman Empire by 1552, as well as capturing territory in Arabia (including Mecca) upon an onslaught of Safavids in 1535.

Süleyman I is killed in 1554, and the Ottoman Empire begins to break up as Süleyman's son, Selim, battles with his older and illegitimate brother. The French, along with some rebellious Germans, recapture a large portion of the Holy Roman Empire. One of Süleyman's nephews, Mehmet, kills both brothers and takes control of the Ottoman Empire in 1558, but one of Süleyman's generals, Hamza, breaks away from the Ottoman Empire, taking a large portion of the Ottoman army with him as well as all Ottoman territory besides captured land in the former Holy Roman Empire; Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia; and Venice. Hamza captures Baghdad and makes further incursions into Safavid Persia. Mehmet sweeps southwards into Italy, capturing Rome (and with it, the Papal States) in 1562. He then moves on into France, taking Paris in 1563 and sweeping down to conquer the rest of France by 1570. Meanwhile, Hamza amasses a new army in Morocco and his forces recapture Granada in 1561, moving inland to conquer much of Castile and Portugal. In 1564, Hamza's original army and fleet make attacks on Sicilian territory, capturing it between 1564 and 1566. His forces based in Castile conquer Madrid and the remainder of Portugal in 1565. By 1572, Spain is entirely under Muslim rule.

Hamza dies in 1571 and is succeeded by Salëman. Mehmet and Salëman's territories meet in 1572 and they begin fighting each other. Mehmet, being a far more experienced general, pushes into Spain, taking what was formerly Navarre and Aragon, as well as taking all of mainland Italy, leaving Sicily to Salëman.

Only the Scandinavian countries remain Christian and unconqured, and the Reformation continues in those countries while it grinds to a halt in countries under threat from the Ottomans. The Renaissance is also ended before it can really begin and mosques are erected throughout Europe; churches being converted into mosques or being torn down.

Over time, the two Ottoman Empires break up into five smaller empires. The Americas are first settled by Europeans in 1736 and the Islamic Renaissance begins in the mid 1800s. By 1980, the whole of North and South America have been settled by European, African, Asian, and Middle Eastern peoples with the Japanese occupying what is now British Columbia and Washington. The rest becomes predominantly Muslim, though a new religion, Selism, arises in South America, focusing around the worship of Nock, a benevolent deity believed to be in constant conflict with the Islamic God.

(Sorry, I have way too many details) ;)

FINAL NOTES

In this timeline, the world is completely different because it didn't rain a lot in 1529 and the Siege of Vienna succeeded. Had it rained, none of this would have happened, so blame the lack of rain for the whole thing.

EDIT: Alternately called Ottimeline.

Where I live, it can get as cold as -40°C (which is also -40 in degrees F) in the winter (and feel even colder), while summer temperatures get up to about 35°C (95 degrees F) at the hottest. On average though, the current temperature here is normal for winter, while 25°C (77 degrees F) is about average for summer.

darth_ender said:

I see what you are saying.  I think perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the perfection of the translation.  For instance, I am assisting with the translation of the Dejarik rules.  Bewy translated things very literally at times.  I am trying to make it more accessible to an English reader.  If it's truly "faithful," does that preclude the use of words and phrases that would be understandable to a modern English reader?  I think not.  Even the NAB has to make such "compromises" for the sake of clarity.  Let me give another example.  In Spanish, the word for dream is "sueno' (with a ~ over the n).  If I'm sleepy, I say, "Tengo sueno," which literally means, "I have a dream."  If I were to translate a Spanish book faithfully, does that mean I have to translate this phrase so it sounds like Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking?  Or would it be better to translate it as, "I'm sleepy"?

That's a good point. I have another question though. If the Nephites et al. named New World animals after Old World animals, rather than giving them new names (e.g. tapirs, deer, bison), would it not have made more sense for Joseph Smith to give them their proper English names in his translation, especially if his translational work was divinely inspired? Of course, that wouldn't be necessary, but why would he render some words into the more familiar English terms, but retain the more literal translations for other words?

EDIT: Assuming that that is your understanding of the seemingly anachronistic animals. If not, then I would like to ask instead, what do you think best explains the appearance of Old World animals in texts written in the New World?

I am sure there are other anachronisms you may come across, many far more confusing than the use of the term "Jew."  For instance, in 2 Nephi the title "Christ" is used for the first time, which is the Greek word for "anointed."  But they are speaking Hebrew or a similar dialect.  Confusing, right?  Well, if you want an answer to that, I can discuss it further, but I'm definitely pretty busy today.  In any case, for a history of the word Jew, look at this wiki article.

It was while after reading the chapter that first names him (2 Nephi 25) that I asked my question. I didn't have a problem with "Christ" since it is more or less synonymous with "Messiah" and has since been incorporated into the English language. As for the term "Jew," I was under the impression that the word now translated as "Jew" only came into use in the second century B.C., but that was only when it was first used to describe the Jewish religion and the faithful of Israel as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term "Jew" technically didn't even come around till English existed.  But if we look at the etymology of the word, there are several synonyms in different languages, and other words mean exactly the same thing: of the Tribe of Judah.

It makes sense in the text, in that case.

Wish I had more time.

 No, you answered my question. :)

Where I am, that's subjectively warm; however, you're definition is pretty much how I define cold as well. I was just teasing you.

L-22

DominicCobb said:

Snow. Cold. 20° F. 

°C = 5/9 (20° - 32)

°C = 5/9 (-12°)

°C = -60/9°C = about -7°C

Cold!? Hahaha!

Bingowings said:

Like Hoth apparently.

 I checked out the site and my city didn't show up. Neither did Edmonton, Alberta, even though it's the capital. Lots of other Edmontons showed up, however.

Where I am, it warmed up overnight to -17°C, with the windchill/humidity-chill making it feel like -25°C. It's been snowing on and off for the past couple days and it's very cloudy and white looking.

I would appreciate it if you posted the temperature in degree Celsius, because I don't read Fahrenheit. ;) I can, however, convert between the two.

For those who don't read Celsius, here's an equation that will allow you to figure it out in case you can't be bothered to Google a temperature converter:

°F = 9/5(°C) + 32

and for when you're converting to Celsius for my benefit, use this equation:

°C = 5/9 (°F - 32)

That goes against Catholic teaching, generalfrevious. Sex is good, but it is abused. If sex was evil, and the first generation of human beings agreed with that and didn't have sex, the human species would be extinct and we wouldn't be here. Sexual urges are normal and are not bad themselves, rather, it is what is done with them that is good or bad.

This is an amazing thread. I'll post some alternate timelines when I've got the time to do it. Right now I have to go save my timeline with my powers of observation and complementation (not to be confused with contemplation).

I partly agree with that, but what I meant was that contraception itself doesn't create health issues. I think it's the sex-saturated culture of ours that has led to most abortions. We live in a world where sex is viewed as a necessary aspect of life and life has little value if it belongs to someone who is suffering or is too small and stupid to care whether or not it is taken from them.

Most people would disagree, and rather strongly, about what I just wrote, but I think it is at the base of many (but not necessarily most) problems today.

I haven't heard anything about health issues for most of them. There is more to the Church's teaching than that.

Before people jump all over you, gf, I would like to correct you on one point. Contraception is not a sin against the Spirit. A sin against the Spirit is attributing works of the Spirit to Satan. Use of contraception can certainly be forgiven.

February 12:

A.D. 1502: Muslims in Granada are forced to convert to Catholicism.

Wow, the Spanish weren't much better than the Muslims in that area, were they...

A.D. 1502: Vasco da Gama sets sail for India from Lisbon, Portugal.

A.D. 1818: Chile gains independence from Spain.

Sounds good. To clarify and sum up what I'm getting at, would it be correct to say the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible if the Book of Mormon isn't a perfect translation either? It was translated only once, but Joseph Smith wasn't entirely faithful to the text if it was a translation. The example I gave was the word "Jew" which couldn't have been in the original books of Nephi if they were as old as they are believed to be by the LDS.

S-16

In this article, the author states:

"Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power."

Do you agree with that statement? If so, what is your response to the many anachronisms contained within the Book of Mormon which can only be explained (assuming Mormonism is correct, of course) on the assumption that Joseph Smith (or in some cases, the original authors) used words more familiar to him (/them). For example: I am reading 2 Nephi which uses the word "Jew." As far as I am aware, this word came into use no earlier than the second century B.C. and is therefore an anachronism. If Joseph Smith replaced words and used phrasing not actually present in the original text, but slightly altered to closer match familiar phrasing in the KJV, can the Book of Mormon truly be called more correct than the Bible?

I may be misunderstanding the LDS beliefs regarding the correctness of the Book of Mormon over the Bible, but if not, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't think this would compromise your beliefs in any way, of course, but I'm just curious to know how you think the Book of Mormon compares in correctness to a translation like the New American Bible (NAB) which used the oldest texts available for translation, and retained the closest possible wording to the original manuscripts.

Sorry about the weird highlighting. I copied the quote and messed the whole thing up.

S-18

Px17

Gs-20

I'm the intelligent one around here! I make more acute observations than Ric Olie himself(!)--I'm still convinced you're an impostor. Take a look at my signature, title, and avatar if you are in doubt.

Gs-24

I don't intend to be mean, Jetrell, but you seem to have an entirely different idea of humour than the rest of us on this forum, so apologies if we don't get each other's jokes.

N-17

Since the two of us started working on the rules, we've created four different versions on top of the one with the rules currently on Zillions. :)

SC-21