It was a lot of fun reviewing the Hugo nominated short stories last year, so I decided to do it again for the Nebulas. This time, I’m getting in before winners are announced (you know, when it’s relevant).
So the stories, in order of appearance on the Nebula announcement page:

Give the Family My Love by A. T. Greenblatt
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Earth has been destroyed. A lone astronaut is humanity's last hope of restoring what’s left of our homeworld back into a livable planet, with the aid of some nebulous alien technology. While on her mission, the astronaut is sending voicemails back to her brother on Earth, letting him know what she’s going through.
On the one hand, the execution is top-notch: the emotional beats hit hard, the protagonist is believable, and you want to read on to see what she’ll find out. On the other hand, I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve read similar stories a hundred times before. Everything from the way the earth is destroyed to Hazel’s secret to the conclusion of the journey is going to feel extremely familiar to anyone with even a fleeting interest in SFF literature.
I’ve always thought that originality is not a necessity for success. In writing, as is in most things, it is more important to do something well than it is to do it first. And Greenblatt does a lot of things well here. However, I can’t help but be a little bit disappointed that there wasn’t any attempt to twist some of the more well-used conventions that this story embraces. So full marks for execution, but maybe just a D for originality.
Final remark: you can and SHOULD listen to this on audio via the Clarkesworld podcast. This story is really meant to be heard rather than read.

The Dead, In Their Uncontrollable Power by Karen Osbourne
What happens when you take Children of Time, remove the spiders, and add in some heavy-duty, Gaiman-when-he-was-writing-sandman level darkness(™)? Well… this. There is a single original Sci-Fantasy type of idea at the heart of the story that takes the generation ship narrative and gives it a new viewpoint. There are death and gore, but not in a fetishized way, and it’s all in the service of the plot.
However, it is a bit lacking in emotional punch. While the descriptions of violence and a mind tearing itself apart are all righteously visceral, the conclusion leaves the reader somewhat apathetic. Whatever emotion Osbourne was going for in those last paragraphs, I didn’t feel it.

And Now His Lordship is Laughing by Shiv Ramdas
I once had a Reddit discussion with someone over the question of whether it was worthwhile to seek out writers of different cultures and backgrounds if more often than not, the same tropes are being used by almost everyone. Well, And Now His Lordship is Laughing is exactly the type of story that will convince you that it’s worth the effort to find more works from different walks of life.
Everything about this story is steeped in Bengali lore, in a place, time, and culture that will probably be completely foreign for most of you reading this. This writing does a great job transporting the reader, painting a very vivid picture of Bengal and its unique magic. It is dark (the list of content warnings is twelve items long), but it’s all in the service of the story, and not just for shock-value. It works really well.
What doesn’t work well is the conclusion. Without wishing to spoil it’s… too easy. From a narrative standpoint, that is. I kept on thinking, “well why didn’t you do this earlier, where it could have helped?” Of course, these stories are rarely meant to be taken at face value, so you might not mind as much.

Ten Excerpts from an Annotated Bibliography on the Cannibal Women of Ratnabar Island by Nibedita Sen
Even though creepypastas have done it to death, I’m always fascinated when someone tries to hide a horror story within something mundane, such as a Wikipedia article, or text messages, or in this case, an annotated bibliography. When done well, it gives just enough of a twist to keep what would have been boring worldbuilding details interesting and sets the reader out to hunt down the narrative on their own, creating better engagement with the story. And Nibedita Sen has done it very well indeed.
What I love about this story is that, much like an ogre, it has layers. On the surface, it tells the tragic tale of a distant tribe of cannibal women and their descendants in the diaspora. But there is also this undercurrent of mysticism, along with a heavy dose of “who are the ones actually committing horrors, exactly?” that gives the whole thing much more depth.
But I think what won me over more than anything is the hint of macabre humor that permeates throughout the text, making the trifecta of being thought-provoking, horrifying, and fun. There are not a lot of authors who are capable of that combo.

A Catalogue of Storms by Fran Wilde
This is the antithesis to Give the Family My Love. Lots of creativity on display, but the execution is a bit of a mess. While there are a lot of intriguing ideas, it’s hard to tell what the story is supposed to be about. If you look hard enough, I’m sure you’ll find something that could be called this story subject. Maybe it’s about resilience, or grief, or change; perhaps if you squint hard enough and tilt your head to the side, you’ll decide it’s about war. But all of that is on the reader, and I’m not sure it’s worth making an effort to try and figure it out when there are other stories that are far more coherent.
I can respect that not all stories need to have some sort of hidden meaning, and I can respect an author who’s basically saying “look, I just wanted to write about this cool idea I had of sentient weather, ok?” but I still need something to connect with. With the characters barely given room to evolve, and the world limited to the point of view of a little girl that barely understands it, reading A Catalogue of Storms was a very unsatisfying experience.

How the Trick is Done by A.C. Wise
How the Trick is Done has a morbid mystique, intriguing setting, a great interpretation of the afterlife, and it raises some interesting questions regarding certain narratives. And it was an absolute pain in the ass to read.
It’s the writing style. Wise chose to stick with short sentences coupled with mild repetition, which got tiresome real fast. I understand that this is a style choice, and can even think of a reason why it would be justifiable for the story, but it felt like someone was tap dancing on my brain the entire story through.
Beyond that, I couldn’t really buy into one of the key elements of the plot – the magician’s charisma. Here’s a guy that has an entire world revolving around him, and the only characteristic we have of him is that he is a bit of an asshole. I just didn’t buy that all those people are willing to sacrifice for him when we get not a single reason for them to even like him. Maybe he rolled a 20 on charisma before the story started or something.
…

And that’s it! Since the winners won’t be decided for some time, I’d like to throw my hat in the ring and pick my winner and also guess who’s going to take gold:

Should Win:
Ten Excerpts from an Annotated Bibliography on the Cannibal Women of Ratnabar Island -
It just gets better the more you think of it. It’s the only story of the bunch I went back and re-read because I wanted to see if I might have missed some interesting detail. But beyond appealing to my sensibilities, it’s also well-written and has some relevant questions to pose to the world. Easy pick for me.

Would Probably Win:
Give the Family My Love -
Look, I don’t know much about the voting process for the Nebulas, but from what I’ve seen, a big difference between it and the Hugos is that it’s much more likely that those making the decision have read all entries. As such, I think the vote is going to come down on writing competence, and Give the Family My Love is easily the most competently written. It’s joy to read from start to finish, and it’s even more of a joy to listen to. I think that will push it over the top.

Feel free to let me know how you guys liked this year’s batch of Nebula nominees.

The Christians Stole All the Fun Gods

I've been sitting on this one for a couple months actually. An AskHistorians question, asking the usual about how much truth there is to the idea that Christianity co-opted pagan holidays and deities. OP was answered accurately and that thread isn't all that important here. However, they cited this fucking nonsense and nobody in the comments there even addressed it. Now, piereligion.org, while being stuck hard in the 1999-2002 era of the "web," is not actually that bad at its eponymous topic. It's a pretty basic and over generalizing take on it, with a seemingly Wikipedia level knowledge despite citing extensive bibliographies, but not "bad" necessarily. But this fucking nonsense is BAD history, etymology, and logic. So I'm going to nitpick it almost sentence by sentence because it pissed me off, and when I finally found time to write this, it pissed me off again.

This is a growing list of Christian saints and which Pagan Gods and Goddesses they are based on.

That's just categorically not how saints work. Most of the time saints are at least-semi historical real people. Did some saints adopt some characteristics of some gods? Yes, but they weren't "based on" the gods, that implies that they didn't actually exist.

The material is organized by the language group of the original Pagan Gods.

Not history, but still wrong about their own website. Ahura Mazda is sitting in the middle of a bunch of Roman stuff further down.

Dates are given in the American way, month/day (sorry! rest of the world).

It would be fine if you hadn't brought it up, but now you're just going to burn in the pit of Hell slightly deeper than the one in subreddit description.

Many Greek Goddesses became Christian saints but if they were powerful in Greek Pagan religion they were either reduced to rape victims or repentant prostitutes or they had to change gender and become male warrior saints.

No (see above) and no the nasty sexist Christians didn't try to erase the strong egalitarian female deities by turning them into men. As proof that the Christians were willing to accept strong female saints I submit this list, this list, and The Blessed Virgin Mary in all of her dozens of roles. For proving that ancients were also sexist pricks, I recommend Galen and his wandering womb, and Aristotle and almost everything he ever said about women.

Demeter is a Goddess of many festivals but most important, the Thesmophoria, which fell in late October. She became St. Demetrios, a masculine warrior saint, whose fd. is 10/26

Ok. Not actually bad here. Demetrios of Thessaloniki actually is an early Christian martyr saint who died in battle and actually did take on some of the aspects of Demeter's mystery cult.¹ Unfortunately, I think our author read that bit of the wikipedia article and decided to call it a day because they seem to assume that every saint whose name was similar to a pagan god was somehow related. It still doesn't excuse the horrible misunderstanding that the gods "became" saints or that

Aphrodite became St. Aphrodite, of which there are several, all with saints’ tales that tell how she became a “repentant whore.”

I can't prove this one wrong because I couldn't find a single reference to St. Aphrodite online or in anything I have in print that might mention an obscure saint. I found a male St. Aphrodisius, but he wasn't a repentant whore, go figure. If somebody out there happens to know about the supposedly "several" St. Aphrodites please chime in.

The Greek Goddess Nike was picked up as Saint Nicholas, who was extremely popular wherever shipping was important. He is the patron saint of Russia, Holland and Germany, all on the Baltic or northern Sea coasts.

Now were in the weeds of it. Apparently Santa Clause is a Greek victory goddess because that's the root word for his name. What does that have to do with shipping? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm going to say this one is disproven on the merit of the Greek root word and originating in Greece being the only things the saint and the deity have in common. For bonus points though, Russia is the only place on that list that St. Nicholas is actually the patron of. He's the patron of a whole bunch of other places and things, including shipping and Amsterdam, but not Holland or Germany.

Many Catholic Saints are “votive saints”, that is, their names were copied off votive offerings for Pagan Gods, especially altars and statues which were still standing in Rome in the fourth century CE.

Great job making up vocabulary. "Votive saints" isn't a category I've ever heard of or could find any significant reference to. Votive offerings are made to saints with candles, and votive offerings were made to Roman gods, but beside that kind of tradition there isn't much of a direct connection between the saints and the gods. Also, what is significant about altars and statues "still" standing in the 4th Century? They were the official religion of the empire for most of it.

The Roman God Mars was originally a God who guarded wheat fields. He became St. Martin (esp. St. Martin-in-the-fields). Although March is the month associated with Mars (it was the beginning of the military campaigning season in Roman times), the major festival for him in Christian times now usually falls in February, called Mardi Gras “Great Mars.”

Holy shit. This might take a gold medal for mental gymnastics. Mars was the guardian of fields, but um... not gonna bring up the whole God of War and deity of the Roman army thing? No? Ok I guess. St. Martin, is Martin of Tours. A 4th century Roman cavalry officer turned Monk, whose Hagiography was actually written by a personal friend, so we know a fair bit about him. St. Martin-in-the-fields is the name of a church in London, and I have no idea why the author thinks that "in-the-fields" is describing a person and not a location. St. Martin is the patron of a ton of things, but wheat fields are not one of them, in fact he has very little to do with agriculture, with the exception of vineyards. The feast day changed months because they had to make this stupid list sound correct somehow, right?
And Mardi Gras, which is not at all associated with St. Martin, is weirdly almost an accurate translation. Of course, it's intended to mean "Fat Tuesday" and the author is almost satirically off the mark here, but: Mardi is the French word for Tuesday, but actually comes from the Latin equivalent which designated Tuesdays as the day of Mars. Gras means fat in French, coming from Latin "crassus" meaning thick, fat, or dense, which could be interpreted as "great" but only if you were being deliberately misleading. The preferred Latin word that we associate with "great" is "magnus."

The Roman God Quirinus became St. Cyrinus, of which there are various “equestrian warrior saints” such as St. Cyr in France, and St. Quirina, mother of St. Lawrence. The element quir- means (or was understood to mean) ‘horse.’ These saints were very popular and widely worshiped in the Middle-Ages, in France, Holland and also eastern Christian countries.

This is another one that is so wrong that it's clear they were just making things up. Quirinus was a Roman war god, who we know very little about and was largely supplanted by Mars as Italy Hellenized. It's fitting then that the author associates him with a whole mess of saints that we also know very little about. They lump all of these together as variations of St. Cyrinus, which doesn't make any sense. Cyrinus is mentioned in one line of text as a martyr in an obscure hagiography of a different saint. Quirina, while possibly really being a feminized form of Qurinius as a name, gets just as little attention and doesn't seem to be connected to St Lawrence at all. St. Cyr is a semi common name for locations in France as a shortened form of Cyricus, a child martyr with Churches named after him from Britain to India. Because he appears in Latin and Syriac traditions, the consensus seems to be that Cyricus is latinized Quriaqos, an Armaic name.
Notice what none of the saints listed have in common? None of them are equestrian warriors, and as far as I can tell Quirinus the god wasn't associated with horses either. The author seems to be trying to connect "quir" with the "que" in "equestrian," but Quirinus probably comes from the Sabine word for spear and the Aramaic word for horse transliterates as "swsy" which pretty clearly isn't "Quiraqos."

The Roman gods known as the Lares became St. Lawrence, esp. St. Lawrence beyond-the-wall. The Lares were field Gods who protected the grain growing in the fields. In Italian, he became St. Lorenzo beyond the Walls, meaning outside of the walls of the city, for which there is still a church in Rome, with many “daughter” churches which developed from it.

If we weren't already, we're now just being stupid. First of all, this is a hell of a lot more authoritative than I've ever seen a classicist talk about the Lares. They do seem to be field gods, but also household gods, and bunch of other things. They seem to be the kind of minor personal gods who helped you with your property in various capacities. St. Lawrence was a deacon who died in the persecution of Valerian in the 3rd century. He is, of course, not an agricultural saint and has nothing at all to do with the Lares or any of their veneration, except maybe being one of the three patron saints of Rome, but that would require knowing more about the Lares. He is however the patron saint of a couple neat professions including librarians and comedians. Once again, St. Lorenzo beyond-the-walls is a church and a location, not a name, and there were many other churches with different descriptors named after him. It's also a little unfair to say that "Lawrence" became "Lorenzo" in Italian as both names are the descendants "Laurentius" in Latin.

The Roman Goddess Venus became St. Venera (with a feminized ending to her name since -us looks like a masculine ending in Latin). She had a major church in Rome in early Christian times, but that didn’t last long.

Venus/Aphrodite making the list twice! First, I'll just point out that "Venera" is Italicized, not feminized. Nobody who knows Latin mistakes Venus for a masculine word. Its third declension feminine, and works just like its supposed to. I'll also point out that she didn't have any kind of church in early Christian times because she first appears in a 14th century document. Interestingly, legends have her destroying pagan temples, but I think the 1000 year gap is probably enough to say she had very little to do with the worship of Venus.

The Roman Gods known as the Gemini, who were protectors of sailors in Roman Pagan times, became the Sanctos Geminos, with a number of forms in the various Christian religions. Santiago de Compostela, (St. James in English) became the protector of pilgrims during the Middle Ages. Forms of St. James all seem to be christianized from various forms of the Proto-Indo-European God *Yama. This God was repeatedly christianized in most of the Indo-European language groups.

The Gemini, Castor and Pollux check out. The only references to holy twins I could find were in Old English Saint's Lives, so I'm inclined not to believe the author about this (that and the trail of bullshit behind this entry). The sudden transition to St. James is a little weird until you get to the bit about *Yama and check out the corresponding page elsewhere on the site, where it explains semi-accurately that the PIE *Yama may be the ultimate source of the Gemini myth, but it also tries to tie into Semitic language mythologies, which are wholly independent of PIE. Particularly it tries to argue a connection to the Semitic root "yam-" which is not only not how language families function (PIE and Semitic are entirely separate categories, especially as far back as the author is referring). It also tries to draw this "yam-" root syllable into the origin of James, but James is a Latinesque form of Hebrew Jacob, further disconnecting it from the authors pretensions.

Not all Christian saints came from Roman and Greek Pagan deities. Ahura Mazda, a major God in Zoroastrian religion became Ador Ormazd (Saint Ahura Mazda) in the early Syriac Christian church

I have to say, I'm actually impressed that the author managed to dig this up. Ador Ormazd is actually a Syriac saint, and Ormazd actually is a form of Ahura Mazda. However, Syriac tradition holds that Ador Ormazd was a Zoroastrian cleric who converted and was subsequently martyred, which seems much more likely than the primary God of a religion that ranges from henotheistic with dualism to fully monotheistic was made into a saint, especially considering that it eventually became normal for Ahura Mazda to be treated as a false god and a demon when the Romans came to conflict with the Sassanids. Not exactly the kind of figure you also try to make into an actively venerated saint.

Not all Pagan saints are even based on Pagan Gods. Some are based on Pagan holidays. For example the Roman festival of Caro Patri (“Dear Parents” a festival to remember one’s ancestors) in the Roman Pagan calendar of Philocalus became the festival of St. Peter’s Chair in the Roman Catholic Martyrology or saints’ calendar. This was one of the sources that contributed to the character of Saint Peter

Getting dumber all the time. I can find no reference to the Caro Patri. It's not in the calendar of Philocalus. It also doesn't translate to "Dear parents." At best it's a grammatically incorrect "Dear fathers" or "Father's body." Because it doesn't seem to exist, it's not really worth it to make up a connection to the Feast of St. Peter's Chair which does exist. And really, this is one of the things that contributed to the invention of St. Peter? Not his presence in the Gospels and supposed authorship of two epistles?

Some saints are “archaeological” saints, that is, they are based on archaeological monuments or finds. St. George is of this type; the image of him killing a dragon is based on sculptures put up by the Romans to threaten barbarians in eastern Europe. The iconography then spawned stories of him killing a dragon.

Look were making up more vocabulary for the last entry. "Archaeological saints" isn't a thing. St. George is just one in an extremely long series of myths about dragon slayers. It's weird that this is the one that the author makes "archaeological" when St. George actually does stand on the shoulders of myths like Hercules and Thor as dragon slayers, but sadly for any retroactive attempt to make that argument, the dragon was a medieval addition to the story of St. George the martyred Greek soldier that seems derrived from images of Christ trampling a snake. Where he got the idea that Romans put up sculptures of dragon killing to scare barbarians is beyond me, I just can't explain that one.
And finally:

The most widely used book of saints in the west is the Golden Legend, but I could not find any convenient place where there was a list of which Pagan Gods became saints, so I will just be adding them in here.

To paraphrase: "Here's a good and common source for this stuff, but I couldn't find anything that supported my opinion, so I'll just make shit up."
Fortunately the Golden Legend was useful for me, as were the sources linked above. As https://catholicsaints.info, Mysterienkulte der Antike: Götter, Menschen, Rituale By Hans Kloft, The Syriac Biographical Dictionary, the footnotes of the NIV Study Bible and the Oxford Annotated Bible, Roman Religion by Valerie M. Warrior, A History of Zoroastrianism by Mary Boyce, the OED, a couple of online lexicons,and double checking wikipedia's citations.

HistoryCommons.org May Go Offline

https://medium.com/@91erik/historycommons-org-revolutionary-app-may-go-offline-dd50143dcfb4
What is the History Commons?* One of the most important and invisible, useful and unknown websites on the internet — and without better funding, it may disappear from the web. You might not have heard of it, but it’s been used and referenced by an array of well-known investigative authors and journalists, including Glenn Greenwald, Craig Unger, James Ridgeway and Peter Lance; see section at this article’s end. HistoryCommons.org is a documentation & research tool driven by a relational database and public input, with editorial oversight. It’s proof-in-practice of the Mosaic Theory of Intelligence Gathering, but for the public interest, the people, our posterity and future generations. HistoryCommons.org is best known for the Complete 9/11 Timeline, but the site hosts over 30 timeline projects on diverse subjects such as elections, wars and foreign interventions, civil liberties, health care, climate change, and other important domestic and foreign policy issues.
Searching HistoryCommons.org reveals important connections and context with easy-to-read entries organized in easy-to-follow timelines. When someone types in the name of a person, organization, place or date, e.g. Osama Bin Laden, relevant entries appear in contextual timelines, revealing relationships and information that might otherwise not be obvious. The free-to-use History Commons takes complex sets of credibly-sourced information and presents them in ways that make it simpler for you to find the information you’re looking for — and understand its significance.
The History Commons welcomes volunteer input from human beings worldwide, as contributors writing new entries on current and historical events, and as editors checking facts and guidelines. Using credible sources and following a standard format, civilians anywhere in the world can write and submit entries at HistoryCommons.org, helping to improve the public’s understanding of significant events and agents. As an editor, you make sure entries are factual and neutral, as well as credibly-sourced and stylistically-consistent. All donors and contributors are helping to maintain public oversight of powerful institutions, and honest stewardship of the body of public knowledge.
HistoryCommons.org is run by the underfunded, unsung Derek Mitchell of the Center for Grassroots Oversight. No one is paid, current contributions aren’t covering basic maintenance, and the site goes down periodically. A years-planned overhaul and upgrade of the site has not gotten underway due to lack of funds — and fund-raising expertise.
If you care about the History Commons and appreciate its contribution to the world, please donate now at HistoryCommons.org, and/or appeal to others to do so. Spread the word about the History Commons. If you have experience in PR, fund-raising, grant-writing, etc., and can offer your services pro bono, please contact HistoryCommons.org today.
Please click here to donate to History Commons.
http://www.historycommons.org/donate.jsp *DISCLOSURE: I’m a supporter of and contributor to History Commons.
From the History Commons Home Page
A Revolution is Coming: What is the HistoryCommons? A webapp that enables crowdsourced investigative journalism A platform for collaborating on the documentation of history. An intelligence tool for the people — A people’s version of the NSA.
What can people do with the HistoryCommons? Generate instant timelines and bibliographies about 1000s of different topics, events, people, corporations, and more. Contribute content and research Collaborate with others to investigate or research a particular issue. Generate instant “context” timelines for any given event or keyword.
For more info, see the History Commons About Page: http://www.historycommons.org/aboutsite.jsp
Praise for the History Commons
From the Commentary section of the Wikipedia article on History Commons:
Numerous individuals have given feedback on the History Commons, often praising it for its uniqueness and usefulness.
In October 2010, Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald called the History Commons’s Watergate project a “richly documented summary of those events.” [26]
In a 2009 e-mail to the site, author Philip Shenon, a veteran New York Times reporter and author of The Commission,[27] a book about the 9/11 Commission, wrote: “Your timeline has been invaluable to me over the years. I’m certainly aware of — and flattered by — your citations from my book.” [6]
Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud [28] and The Fall of the House of Bush,[29] wrote: “For serious research, it’s hard to think of a more valuable resource than the timelines assembled by History Commons. The material they provide is a welcome antidote to the misinformation and disinformation that has been coming out of Washington in recent years and they are essential tools in assembling a counter-narrative that more honestly addresses the crises we face.” In his acknowledgements to House of Bush, House of Saud, Unger wrote: “The Center for Cooperative Research is another valuable Internet tool. Because I made a practice of citing original sources, it does not appear in my notes nearly as often as it might. However, its timelines about 911 and related issues often helped me find exactly what I was looking for. I highly recommend it to anyone doing research on 9/11 and I encourage its support.”
Author Peter Lance wrote, in the acknowledgements of his book Cover-Up: “As mentioned throughout, I was blessed in this state of my research with access to Paul Thompson’s remarkable timelines from the Center for Cooperative Research … each citation in that database is supported by a news story from the mainstream media. … Any research, reporter, or scholar with an interest in the war on terror would consider the Cooperative Research timelines a bonanza of open source information.” [30]
Village Voice correspondent James Ridgeway wrote in April 2004: “Paul Thompson … is one of a handful of freelance, unpaid, amateur sleuths who have become a 9/11 Information Central — what amounts to an intelligence apparatus aimed at pinning down what the Bush administration knew and didn’t know about 9/11, before and after the attacks. The results of this sleuthing often find their way to the 9/11 families, and in particular, to the by now mythic Jersey Girls, as the leaders of the survivors’ families have come to be called. The researchers are in many ways similar to the team Scott Armstrong, the former Washington Post reporter, recruited in the mid 1980s to uncover the roots of Reagan’s secret Iran-Contra deals. … At the hub of the 9–11 research is [Paul] Thompson’s intricate timeline. … Still other timelines delve into official ‘lies’ from 1979 forward. … [Derek] Mitchell’s aim is to keep the entries as neutrally written and as well sourced as he can.” [4] In his 2005 book, The Five Unanswered Questions of 9/11, Ridgeway referred to Thompson’s book, The Terror Timeline, as “still the most comprehensive summary of the events related to the 9/11 attacks.”[31] At that time, the book contained only a significant fraction of the total amount of information contained in The Complete 9/11 Timeline at CooperativeResearch.org, and a great deal of material has since been added.
New York Magazine correspondent Mark Jacobson wrote in 2006, “[The History Commons’] 9/11 timeline has become the undisputed gold standard of truth research …” [32]
Minneapolis City Pages reporter Steve Perry wrote in 2003 that the History Commons is “endlessly informative.” [33]
Daniel Erlacher, the director of Austria’s Elevate Festival, wrote in an e-mail to the site:
The History Commons is one of the most important and technologically advanced projects of civil journalism there is today. The website of the project is an enormous resource for researchers. Because of the excellent possibilities to tag entities and to group them in timetables, people can easily read and filter information, which is usually presented out of context. The History Commons is a project which helps connect the dots and sheds light on several inconsistencies in official narratives of some of the most important stories of our time. The Elevate Festival was very proud to present the project for the first time in Europe in 2008 and we will continue to support it.[6][34] Matthew Hurst wrote on his Data Mining blog in 2008: “The site is a cooperative approach to history and presents data in timelines. … I like this vertical approach to wiki data as it has the potential to focus both expertise and data structures, making the data more valuable in a number of dimensions.” [35]
Author David Ray Griffin wrote in the acknowledgements of his book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited In acknowledging the tremendous amount of help and support I received in writing this book, I wish to begin by mentioning the indispensable source for 9/11-related stories published in the mainstream press: The Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons (formerly known as Cooperative Research). … [I]t has surely become, through the continuing work of [Paul] Thompson and his colleagues, the greatest feat of annotated, investigative journal indexing ever achieved on a volunteer basis. Having served as the source of about half of my references in The New Pearl Harbor, this timeline has been equally indispensable for The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.[36]
Matthew Phelan, in an column for Gawker on NSA misuse of authorities, referred to factual information about significant entities and events being “dutifully logged at places like History Commons where … people like to go to collaboratively try and figure out what the hell is going on, post-9/11.” [37]

[ENG 102: Annotated bibliography] Can you guys let me know if this is correct or is it too brief?

Nhi Ngo
Ms. Grabiec
ENG 102
19 April 2020
Capital Punishment: An Annotated Bibliography
Thesis: Every citizen deserves a fair sentence and capital punishment is not a just reason to end an individual’s life.
Alexie, Sherman. “Capital Punishment.” Arguing about Literature: A Guide and Reader, 2nd ed.,
Bedford/St. Martins, 2020, p. 993-997
In “Capital Punishment,” author Sherman Alexie argue that any form of killing, whether if it decided due to the actions of the individual or by the state, can not be justified. Alexie also asserts that race plays a major role in capital punishment as well. In addition, Alexie believes that there is racial bias in the capital punishment system and that society needs to open their eyes to see that as well.
This poem is helpful in developing my thesis because Alexie projects how unjust the system is as race continues to influence the decisions being made. A death is a death, just because a person committed a crime, it does not make them any less of a person. Alexie argues that society should not hold the power to determine whether a person should live or die. Not only is killing unjust but a person’s race should not determine who they are as a person.
Will, George. “Capital Punishment’s Slow Death.” Arguing about Literature: A Guide and
Reader, 2nd ed., Bedford/St. Martins, 2020, p. 998-1000
In “Capital Punishment’s Slow Death”, George Will clearly presents three arguments to capital punishment. One, capital punishment promotes government infallibility which goes against conservatism. Two, once someone’s life is taken, it cannot be reversed. Three, capital punishment is losing the power to deter, or to discourage someone by using fear of the consequences.
George Will’s arguments support my thesis, especially when he stated that capital punishment fails to deter criminal acts. There have been many crimes committed that administration could not just put off and death was the ending resort. Will argues that this kind of action is dehumanizing and
Otis, Bill. “George Will’s Limp Case about the Death Penalty.” Arguing about Literature: A
Guide and Reader, 2nd ed., Bedford/St. Martins, 2020, p. 1000-1002
In “George Will’s Limp Case against the Death Penalty”, George Will believes that capital punishment is fading away, and that it goes against conservative beliefs. Otis states that he is wrong because what Conservatives understand best is balance. Conservatism is based around traditions and wanting to keep change from happening. In this case, capital punishment is what society wants to keep around.
Like George Will, I see the execution of a human being as a barrier to capital punishment, but this source argues against my thesis since conservatives do not see the execution of a human as a barrier, but as an “extremely serious cost” (Otis 1001).
Ogletree, Charles. “Condemned to Die Because He’s Black.” Arguing about Literature: A Guide
and Reader, 2nd ed., Bedford/St. Martins, 2020, p. 1003-1005
In “Condemned to Die Because He’s Black,” the author Charles Ogletree goes into detail about how Duane Buck, a black male, was not given a fair trial and sentenced to death because of his skin color. He asserts that race nor gender should be a factor in determining if an individual is worthy of the death penalty. Ogletree believes that society is blindsighted by racial discrimination that still lingers on in the criminal-justice system.
Ogletree’s arguments support my thesis statement because he shows that the criminal-justice system is unjust for sentencing colored men to death. He agrees that race clouds society’s judgement about an individual's profile. Racial fear and gender stereotypes is not a reason to put down someone’s life.
Rubric:
An annotated bibliography is a research tool that helps a writer to summarize a piece of writing in his/er own words and then make an educated evaluation about whether or not that particular piece of writing would be helpful for supporting a paper or a specific thesis on a topic.
Each entry should include:

MLA 8 format Works Cited entry (hanging indent and all)
small paragraph (50-75 words) on what the piece is about- in hanging-indent margin
small paragraph (50-75) on why that piece will or will not be useful in the future to the author. Very often, even pieces that do NOT support the writer’s thesis are still included and important- because they provide the refutation information needed to show the author has fully researched the opposing ideas and can still maintain a sound academic argument- in hanging-indent margin

For this assignment, you will decide if you would like to read through ideas on the TOPIC of Immigrants and American jobs or Capital Punishment in America. Once you pick a TOPIC, you will create a basic thesis (topic + your CLAIM on that topic). With your thesis in mind, you will go through the assigned readings -creating your Annotated Bibliography as outlined below.
For this exercise, stay general for your thesis; decide if you are pro or against the topic of your choice and create a thesis. For example (if you decided to go with immigrant/ jobs topic): “Immigrants take jobs Americans need.” (REMEMBER- STILL! ONLY WRITING IN THE THIRD PERSON! Still academic tone and writing level).
After you have created your personal thesis, follow the steps below:
Assignment:

Read through the OWL Purdue Annotated Bibliography documents in the assignments (Annotated Bibliography) folder on the definition and creation of an annotated bibliography- taking the time to look at the sample below as well. Review the information available in ACHIEVE Week 13 Folder.
Read through the assigned readings from the course plan related to your topic of marriage OR capital punishment. *These are the ONLY sources you will use for this assignment*
Be sure to have a "summary" paragraph and a "this would/would not be useful" paragraph- as well as a working thesis listed just below the title. See the example attached below.
Create an alphabetically ordered annotated bibliography that includes each piece of writing in the correct order and MLA 8 page-layout as outlined below: 550-650 words required (including citations)
Each entry (total of four) should contain:
1. MLA 8 Works Cited entry for the piece
2. One paragraph summarizing the piece. This should include all the main ideas and what the author’s purpose appears to be for the piece (50-75 words depending on the piece).
  1. Give 1-2 direct quote snippets as specific examples for your thoughts.
3. One evaluation paragraph that starts with “This (essay/poem/etc) would/would not be helpful to the research because…” This paragraph may be written in the first person. (50-75 words depending on the piece).

Example Format:

📷
Harry Potter Potter 1 Professor Smith
ENG 102
3 March 2020
Dilbert: An Annotated Bibliography
Thesis: All animals crave monogamy as part of genetic make-up and the need to belong with society at large.
Adams, Scott. “Live and Love in Humankind.” Collection of the Bizzare Anthology, edited by Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, 9th ed., Bedford/St. Martin, 2019, p. 23-27.📷
Scott Adams deeply justifies the need for monogamy in the social circles of the spider. Not only do they live, but they breathe the life of their partner....(continue on with this as much as needed to properly summarize).
This article is very useful for my thesis as Adams even comments, “The spider, quite a bit lower on the evolutionary scale even understands the basic need for belonging” (45).
Faulkner, William. “A Rose for Emily.” Collection of the Bizzare Anthology, edited by Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, 9th ed., Bedford/St. Martin, 2019, p. 334-355.📷
Due to the format for this assignment, an additional Works Cited page is not required.

Academic material for those studying female sex predators.

105 Academic Reference materials & scholarly papers on the topic of Female Sex Predators who abuse children:

Allen, C.M. (1990). Women as perpetrators of child sexual abuse: Recognition barriers. In A. Horton. B. Johnson, L. Roundy and D. Williams, (Eds.), The Incest Perpetrator: A Family Member No One Wants to Treat. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, Craig. (1991). Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Allen, C. M., & Pothast, H. L. (1994). Distinguishing characteristics of male and female child sex abusers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 21, 73-88.

Bachmann, K. M., Moggi, F., Stirnemann-Lewis, F. (1994) Mother-son incest and its long-term consequences: A neglected phenomenon in psychiatric practice. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 182, 723-725.

Banning, A. (1989). Mother-son incest: Confronting a prejudice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 563-570.

Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L., & Kao, C. F. (1991). Detecting and labeling prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 115-123.

Becker, J.V.; Hall, S.R.; Stinson, J.D. Female sexual offenders: Clinical, legal and policy issues. J. Forensic Psychol. P. 2001, 1, 29–50.

Berendzen, R, & Palmer, L. (1993). Come here: A man overcomes the tragic aftermath of childhood sexual abuse. New York: Villard Books.

Berner, W.; Briken, P.; Hill, A. Female Sexual Offenders. In Sex Offenders—Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues; Saleh, F.M., Grudzinskas, A.J., Bradford, J.M., Brodsky, D.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.

Boroughs, D. Female sexual abusers of children. Child. Youth Serv. Rev 2004, 26, 481–487.

Bourke, A.; Doherty, S.; McBride, O.; Morgan, K.; McGee, H. Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: characteristics of the offender and victim. Psychol. Crime Law 2014, 20, 769–780.

Briere J., & Elliott D.M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205-1222. [includes statistics on females' perpetrating sexual abuse against boys and girls]

Briggs, F.; Hawkins, R. Protecting boys from the risk of sexual abuse. Early Child Dev. Care 1995, 110, 19–32.

Bunting, L. Females Who Sexually Offend Against Children: Responses of the Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems; Executive summary; NSPCC: London, UK, 2005.

Bunting, L. Dealing with a problem that doesn’t exist? Professional responses to female perpetrated child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Rev. 2007, 16, 252–267.

Chasnoff, I.J., Burns, W.J., Schnoll, S.H., Burns, K., Chisum, G. and Jyle-Spore, L. (1986). Maternal-neonatal incest. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56(4), 577-580.

Clements, H.; Dawson, D.L.; das Nair, R. Female perpetrated sexual abuse: a review of victim and professional perspectives. J. Sex. Aggress. 2014, 20, 197–215.

Condy, S. R., Templer, D. I., Brown, R., & Veaco, L. (1987). Parameters of sexual contact of boys with women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 379-394.

Cortoni, F.; Hanson, R.K.; Coache, M.E. The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: A meta-analysis. Sex Abuse 2010, 22, 387–401.

Cortoni, F.; Babchishin, K.M.; Rat, C. The proportion of sexual offenders who are female is higher than thought: A meta-analysis. Crim. Justice Behav. 2017, 44, 145–162.

Cortoni, F.; Gannon, T.A. Understanding female sexual offenders. In Theories of Sexual Offending; Ward, T., Beech, A.R., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2017; pp. 453–471. [Google Scholar]

Denov, M.S. The myth of innocence: Sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. J. Sex Res. 2003, 40, 303–314.

Denov, M.S. The Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators: A Qualitative Study of Male and Female Victims. J. Interpers. Violence 2004, 19, 1137–1156.

Denov, M.S. Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2004.

Elliott, M. Female Sexual Abuse of Children–The Ultimate Taboo; Longman: Harlow, UK, 1993.

Elliott, Michele (Ed.). (1993). Female Sexual Abuse of Children. New York: Guilford Press.

Elliott, I.A.; Ashfield, S. The use of online technology in the modus operandi of female sex offenders. J. Sex. Aggress. 2011, 17, 92–104.

Faller, K. C. (1987). Women who sexually abuse children. Violence and Victims, 2, 263-276.

Faller, K.C. A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused children. J. Child Sexual Abuse 1995, 4, 13–30.

Fehrenbach, P. A., & Monastersky, C. (1988). Characteristics of female adolescent sexual offenders. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 148-151.

Finch, S.M. (1973). Sexual abuse by mothers. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 7(1), 191.

Finkelhor, D., Williams, L.M., Burns, N. and Kalinowski, M. (1988). Sexual abuse in day care: A national study. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.

Finkelhor, D., Meyers, M. W., & Burns, N. (1988). Nursery crimes: Sexual abuse in day care. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Finkelhor, D., & Russell, D. (1984). Women as perpetrators. In D. Finkelhor (Ed.), Child sexual abuse: New theory and research (pp.171-187). New York: Free Press.

Finkelhor, D.; Hotaling, G.; Lewis, I.A.; Smith, C. Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women-Prevalence, characteristics, and risk-factors. Child Abuse Neglect. 1990, 14, 19–28.

Freel, M. Women Who Sexually Abuse Children; Social Work Monograph: Norwich, UK, 1995.

Freeman-Longo, R.E. (1986). The impact of sexual victimization on males. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 411-414.

Fromuth, M.E.; Conn, V.E. Hidden perpetrators: Sexual molestation in a nonclinical sample of college women. J. Interpers. Violence 1997, 12, 456–465.

Fromuth, M.; Burkhart, B. Long-term psychological correlates of childhood sexual abuse in two samples of college men. Child Abuse Negl. 1989, 13, 533–542.

Gannon, T.A.; Rose, M.R. Female child sexual offenders: Towards integrating theory and practice. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2008, 13, 442–461.

Gavin, H. “Mummy wouldn’t do that”: The perception and construction of the female child sex abuse. In Grotesque feminities: Evil, women and the feminine; Barrett, M., Porter, T., Eds.; The Inter-Disciplinary Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.

Goldhill, R. What was she thinking? Women who sexually offend against children–implications for probation practice. Probat. J. 2013, 60, 415–424.

Grayston, A.D.; De Luca, R.V. Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A review of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggress. Violent Behav. 1999, 4, 93–106

Green, A.H.; Kaplan, M.S. Psychiatric impairment and childhood victimization experiences in female child molesters. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1994, 33, 954–961.

Haliburn, J. Mother-child incest, psychosis, and the dynamics of relatedness. J. Trauma Dissociation 2017, 18, 409–426.

Harper, J. F. (1993). Prepuberal male victims of incest: A clinical study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 419-421.

Hayes, S.; Baker, B. Female Sex Offenders and Pariah Femininities: Rewriting the Sexual Scripts. J. Criminol. 2014, 1, 1–8.

Hislop, J. Female Sex Offenders: What Therapists, Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services Need to Know; Issues Pres: Ravensdale, Ireland, 2001.

Hunter, J.A.; Lexier, L.J.; Goodwin, D.W.; Browne, P.A.; Dennis, C. Psychosexual, attitudinal, and developmental characteristics of juvenile female perpetrators in a residential treatment setting. J. Child Fam. Stud. 1993, 2, 317–326.

Hunter, J.A.; Mathews, R. Sexual deviance in females. In Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment; Laws, D.R., O’Donohue, W.T., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 465–480.

Jenkins, P. Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1998.

Jennings, K. Female child molesters: A review of literature. In Female Sexual Abuse of Children; Elliott, M., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 219–234.

Johansson-Love, J.; Fremouw, W. A critique of the female sexual perpetrator research. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2006, 11, 12–26.

Johnson, R. L., & Shrier, D. (1987). Past sexual victimization by females of male patients in an adolescent medicine clinic population. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 650-652.

Johnson, T. C. (1989). Female child perpetrators: Children who molest other children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 571-585.

Kaufman, K.L., Wallace, A.M., Johnson, C.F. and Reeder, M.L. (1995). Comparing female and male perpetrators' modus operandi: Victims' reports of sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3), 322-333.

Knopp, F.F. and Lackey, L.B. (1987). Female sexual abusers: A summary of data from 44 treatment providers. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.

Kramer, S.; Bowman, B. Accounting for the “invisibility” of the female paedophile: An expert-based perspective from South Africa. Psychol. Sexualit. 2011, 2, 244–258.

Krug, R. S. (1989). Adult male reports of childhood sexual abuse by mothers: Case descriptions, motivations and long-term consequences. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 111-119.

Landor, R.; Eisenchlas, S. “Coming clean” on duty of care: Australian print media’s representation of male versus female sex offenders in institutional contexts. Sex. Cult. 2012, 16, 486–502.

Levin, R. J., & Berlo, W. V. (2004). Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non consensual sexual stimulation- a review. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 11(2), 82-88. doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2003.10.008

Lewis, C.F.; Stanley, C.R. Women accused of sexual offenses. Behav. Sci. Law 2000, 18, 73–81.

Lawson, C. (1993). Mother-son sexual abuse: Rare or underreported? A critique of the research. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 261-269.

Mackelprang, E.; Becker, J.V. Beauty and the eye of the beholder: Gender and attractiveness affect judgements in teacher sex offense cases. Sex. Abuse 2017, 29, 375–395.

McLeod, D.A.; Craft, M.L. Female sexual offenders in child sexual abuse cases: National trends associated with child protective services systems entry, exit, utilization, and socioeconomics. J. Publ. Child Welfare 2015, 9, 399–416.

Margolis, M. (1984). A case of mother- adolescent son incest: A follow-up study. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 53(3), 355-385.

Matthews, J.K. Working with female sexual abusers. In Female Sexual Abuse of Children; Elliott, M., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 57–73.

Mathews, R, Matthews, J. K., & Speltz, K. (1989). Female Sexual Offenders: An Exploratory Study. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Matravers, A. Understanding women sex offenders. In Criminology in Cambridge: Newsletter of the Institute of Criminology; Institute of Criminology: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 10–13.

Marvesti, J. (1986). Incestuous mothers: American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 63-69.

Mayer, A. (1992). Women Sex Offenders: Treatment and Dynamics. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.

McCarthy, L. M. (1986). Mother-child incest: Characteristics of the offender. Child Welfare, LXI, 65(5), 447-459.

Mellor, D.; Deering, R. Professional response and attitudes toward female-perpetrated child sexual abuse: A study of psychologists, psychiatrists, probationary psychologists and child protection workers. Psychol. Crime Law 2010, 16, 415–438.

Miccio-Fonseca, L.C. Adult and adolescent female sex offenders: Experiences compared to other female and male sex offenders. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 2000, 11, 75–88.

Miletski, H. (1997). Mother-Son Incest: The Unthinkable Broken Taboo. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Morgan, P.K. and Gaier, E.L. (1956). The direction of aggression in the mother-child punishment situation. Child Development, 27(4), 447-457.

Nathan, P.; Ward, T. Females who sexually abuse children: Assessment and treatment issues. Psychiatr. Psychol. Law 2001, 8, 44–45.

Nathan, P.; Ward, T. Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. J. Sex. Aggress. 2002,

O'Conner, A. (1987). Female sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 615-620.

Ogilvie, B.; Daniluk, J. Common themes in the experiences of mother–daughter incest survivors: Implications for counseling. J. Couns. Dev. 1995, 73, 598–602.

Peter, T. Mad, bad, or victim? Making sense of mother-daughter sexual abuse. Fem. Criminol. 2006, 1, 283–302.

Peter, T. Exploring taboos comparing male- and female-perpetrated child sexual abuse. J. Interpers. Violence 2009, 24, 1111–1128.

Richards, K. Misperceptions about child sexual offenders. Trends Issues Crime Crim. Justice 2011, 429, 1–8.

Robinson, S. From victim to offender: Female offenders of child sexual abuse. Eur. J. Crim. Pol. Res. 1998, 6, 59–73.

Safiye Tozdan, Peer Briken and Arne Dekker (2019) Uncovering Female Child Sexual Offenders—Needs and Challenges for Practice and Research. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(3), 401;
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/8/3/401/htm?fbclid=IwAR0GXP2Vsqi-LMhKCqBSffGRSdh-uRqBwwVDRhqAETFvZOj_tpBpD7G-F-E

Sandler, J.C.; Freeman, N.J. Typology of female sex offenders: A test of Vandiver and Kercher. Sex. Abuse 2007, 19, 73–89.

Saradjian, J. & Hanks, H. (1996). Women Who Sexually Abuse Children: From Research to Clinical Practice (Wiley Series in Child Care and Protection) NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Saradjian, J. Women Who Sexually Abuse Children: From Research to Clinical Practice; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1996

Sarrel, P. M., & Masters, W. H. (1982). Sexual molestation of men by women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11, 117-131.

Savage, L. Female offenders in Canada, 2017. Juristat 2019, 1, 1–20.

Shengold, L. (1980). Some reflections on a case of motheadolescent son incest. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 61, 461-476.

Shields, R.T. & Cochran, J.C. J Quant Criminol (2019)
The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333518551_The_Gender_Gap_in_Sex_Offender_Punishment
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-019-09416-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09416-x
(submitted by u/peonsupreme)

Snyder, H.N. Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics; DIANE Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.

Sroufe, L.A. and Ward, M.J. (1980). Seductive behavior of mothers of toddlers: Occurrence, correlates, and family origins. Child Development, 51, 1222-1229.

Stadler, L.; Bieneck, S.; Pfeiffer, C. Forschungsbericht Nr. 118. Repräsentativbefragung sexueller Missbrauch 2011; Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V: Hannover, Germany, 2012.

Stathopoulos, M. The Exception that Proves the Rule: Female Sex Offending and the Gendered Nature of Sexual Violence. ACSSA Research Summary, 5th ed.; Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne, Australia, 2014.

Tardif, M.; Auclair, N.; Jacob, M.; Carpentier, J. Sexual abuse perpetrated by adult and juvenile females: An ultimate attempt to resolve a conflict associated with maternal identity. Child. Abuse Neglect 2005, 29, 153–167.

Tsopelas, C.; Spyridoula, T.; Athanasios, D. Review on female sexual offenders: Findings about profile and personality. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2011, 34, 122–126.

Vandiver, D.M.; Walker, J.T. Female sex offenders: An overview and analysis of 40 cases. Crim. Justice Rev. 2002, 27, 284–300

Vandiver, D.M.; Kercher, G. Offender and victim characteristics of registered female sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sex. Abuse 2004, 16, 121–137.

Wahl, C.W. (1960). The psychodynamics of consummated maternal incest. Archives of General Psychiatry, 3, 96/188-101/193.

Wakefield, H., Rogers, M., and Underwager, R. (1990). Female sexual abusers: A theory of loss. Issues In Child Abuse Accusations, 2, 181-195.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_4_1.htm

Wakefield, H.; Underwager, R. Female child sexual abusers: A critical review of the literature. Am. J. Forensic Psychol. 1991, 9, 45–69.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/female.htm.

Wilkins, R. Women who sexually abuse children: Doctors need to become sensitised to the possibility. BMJ 1990, 300, 1153–1159.

Additional Bibliographies
___________________ courtesy of u/PeonSupreme

Female Sexual Offender Annotated Bibliography by Author
Table sortable by author, date, category.
Compiled by Theresa M. Porter, PsyD

Resources and bibliography on Female Sexual Deviance and Sexually Abusive/Criminal Behavior - PDF
24 page PDF document sorted by topic.
Compiled by Alan Listiak, Ph.D.

Comment:
These academic papers and books on Female sex predators date as far back as 1956, 1960 and yet the mental health community continues to tell victims of female predators who seek help that this issue does not exist or is minor.

More studies and articles in the comments below.

The Triumph and Tragedy of the Treaty of Versailles - My 12 year-old’s 10 min documentary for National History Day

Airsoft Buyer's Guide for Noobs

There is a lot to know when you're first getting into airsoft. As a new airsofter, you don't want to waste your money on a bad purchase, but there are so many factors to consider when you first start that it becomes overwhelming really quickly. This guide is meant to provide a brand new airsoft player with a solid foundational understanding of airsoft as a sport and as a market. Author's note: I feel it is important to note what this guide is NOT. This guide will not tell what brand or model of gun to buy. It will not give you any specific product pages to buy from. And it will not review any brands or models. For those things, do your own research by looking around this subreddit, watching Youtube reviews, checking store page reviews, and reading independent review websites. This guide will not tell you what to buy, it will teach you how to buy.

Types of Airsoft guns

The first thing for you to know is what kind of airsoft gun you want. In this case, 'kind' refers to what mechanism makes the BB fly out of the barrel. The kind of airsoft gun you choose will affect its price, availability of replacement parts, feasibility of repair, longevity, and to a certain degree, quality.
AEG (Automatic Electric Gun) AEGs are the near-universally recommended type of airsoft gun for noobs. They own the vast majority of the airsoft rifle market, and for good reason. A good AEG is reliable, cheap, simple, and relatively easy to tear down and rebuild. If you are looking into getting an AEG, you need to know what price point (or price range) you want and which real-life gun you want it to be a replica of (known as the platform). Once you've done that, you can select a specific gun by choosing which features are important to you. These features can be anything from a specific buttstock, to a certain material for construction, to certain included items like a battery and charger.
BASR (Bolt-Action Sniper Rifle) BASRs, are the popular choice for people who want to focus on movement and positioning over shooting. Due to their limited fire-rate and magazine capacity, BASRs require the operator to rely on their knowledge of the field and ability to remain patiently hidden rather than on the firepower of the rifle itself. BASRs do have some advantages over AEGs. A base model BASR is generally significantly weaker than an AEG in all respects. However, the performance ceiling for a modified BASR is far greater and enables good precision at extremely long range. BASRs also have the advantage of less noise, allowing a well-hidden sniper to remain so. For those reasons, it is strongly recommended that noobs not use BASRs until they have the required knowledge, skills, and financial commitment to airsoft to take full advantage of the BASR's strengths.
GBBR (Gas Blowback Rifle) GBBRs are a much more expensive starting option. An entry-level GBBR will often cost over $300 for the base gun alone, plus the cost of ownership is much higher than an AEG; GBBRs require gas and have more expensive magazines and parts. The complexity of repair also increases for a GBBR compared to an AEG. The benefits, on the other hand, are also great. Their premium price point leads to the average build quality of a GBBR being much higher than that of an AEG. The greatest advantage a GBBR has over an AEG is its blowback, which many people value highly for its 'realistic' feel. Overall, GBBRs are generally preferred by those seeking a simulation experience rather than a competitive experience.
GBBP (Gas Blowback Pistol) Unlike the relationship between the GBBR and the AEG, a GBBP is usually much better than an AEP (automatic electric pistol) if you're looking for a handgun. Good GBBPs can be found for about $100 brand new, then another $50 for extra magazines if desired. There are two schools of thought on the matter of noobs buying GBBPs: those that believe that noobs should spend their money elsewhere before getting a sidearm, and those who believe that the fun-value of a sidearm outweighs its cost. Which camp you fall into is your personal preference. If you plan to spend more time plinking (shooting targets in a backyard) than playing airsoft as a sport, a GBBP is great. Otherwise your money will be better spent on a higher-quality primary.
HPA (High-Pressure Air) A third option for primary rifles, HPA systems are by far the least recommended option for noobs. An HPA system uses heavily compressed air fed from a canister into the gun to propel BBs out of the barrel. HPA systems are complex (if you're DIYing the HPA-tap), expensive, and can even be dangerous if mishandled. However, HPA systems are extremely flexible and can be made much more powerful than any AEG or GBBR. With the great power of an HPA system comes its great responsibility. If used and maintained appropriately HPA systems can be a lot more reliable than electricity or gas due to their lack of reliance on a second ammunition (batteries, CO2 canisters, or green-gas/propane).

Significant Features

Once you've decided on a kind and platform (e.g. AEG M4), you'll need to decide on which model you want. Deciphering the jargon and buzzwords on a typical retailer product page can be intimidating, so the following will address the most common features and specs you'll see mentioned and will also provide clarity about which features and specs are important. The list will be categorized into three areas: externals (the parts that you see and feel), internals (the parts that make the BBs fly out), and miscellaneous.
Externals

Full-metal - Receivers^[i1] (the external part that houses the gearbox) and furniture^[i2] (the grip, stock, and the external part of the barrel) are typically made of either plastic or metal. While some may preach otherwise, neither of those is necessarily better than the other because there are high- and low-quality plastics (usually called "polymers" and "plastic" respectively) and high- and low-quality metals (usually "steel" or "pot-metal" respectively) though pot metal is rarely used for the external components. When deciding on a gun, keep in mind that plastics will typically be lighter and metals will typically be more durable.
Real-wood - Some platforms and models use real-wood for the buttstock and/or grip. Real wood is considered higher quality than metal or plastic when available, but will be heavier than high-quality polymers.
Tokyo-Marui compatible - Tokyo Marui is a Japanese airsoft manufacturer. Tokyo Marui frequently sets the standard for high-quality airsoft guns and parts and therefor compatibility with Tokyo Marui parts is a valuable feature for upgrade-ability.
Thread-direction - Thread-direction refers to the length and direction of the threading for the barrel attachment (flash hider, mock suppressor, etc.). If you ever intend to replace the stock barrel attachment (typically something ugly and orange), this information will be useful. The most common is 14mm negative.
QD-sling mount - Some models support "quick-detach" sling mounts^[i3] which, when paired with a QD sling, allows faster repositioning of a sling (typically a one-point sling^[i4]).
Genuine/Realistic trademarks - Some manufacturers purchase the rights to print or engrave the trademarks of the real-steel original gun onto their airsoft replicas. While realistic trademarks have no impact on the performance of the gun, it can be a significant value-add for collectors.
RAS/RIS (Rail Attachment System/Rail Integration System) - RASs and RISs^[i5] are different names for the handguard part. The differences between them are effectively insignificant in airsoft, but addressed here^[r1]. If the model has either one, it supports standard attachments like optics, laser sights, flashlights, or foregrips.

Internals

LiPo-ready gearbox - Many manufacturers will advertise "LiPo-ready" gearboxes, but unless the page specifically lists "11.1v LiPo-ready", the term has no meaning. Any gearbox that can use a 9.6v NiCad or NiMh battery (which is what most come with) can handle a 7.4v (aka 2S or 2-cell) LiPo and most will be significantly more responsive with a 7.4v LiPo than with a NiCad or NiMh battery. For more information about LiPos, see here^[r2].
MOSFET - A MOSFET is an advanced trigger wiring system for AEGs which improves the ability of the gearbox to handle high-current batteries. Most entry- and mid-level AEGs work just fine without a MOSFET. If you intend to upgrade your battery to an 11.1v LiPo, a MOSFET is required to prevent burning the trigger contacts. vollnov has a good explanation here^[r3]. A much more in-depth explanation including instructions for building a MOSFET yourself can be found here^[r4].
Full-metal gearbox - All entry-level airsoft guns are expected to have a gearbox made of, at the lowest-end, pot metal. The term 'full-metal gearbox' simply indicates that the airsoft gun meets the lowest standards for usability. Airsoft guns costing anywhere from $70-$500+ use a full-metal gearbox, so do some research to find out what the quality of the metal is.
Spring strength - There are four main spring manufacturers: Systema, Prometheus, PDI, and Guarder. Each of those has their own naming convention for the strength of their springs. The details and some performance benchmarks can be found here^[r5].
Hop-up unit - All entry-level airsoft guns are expected to have an adjustable hop-up unit. You will need to find out the quality of the hop-up unit by looking at reviews. For a tier-list of which hop-ups are good, see the hop-up unit section of this guide^[r6] . If you're interested in how a hop-up unit works, see here^[r7].
Motor type - Airsoft motors come in three lengths: short^[i6], medium^[i7], and long^[i8]. The difference between them is with which platforms each is compatible. For example: M4s use the long-type motor, the SIG 552 uses the medium type, and the G36 and AK platforms use the short-type motor. In addition to the length, there are also high-speed and high-torque motors. High-speed motors are better for builds focused on a high rate of fire while high-torque motors are better for builds focused on high responsiveness (short time between pulling trigger and BB flying out) or high FPS (to pull back a stronger spring).
Muzzle-velocity/FPS - The FPS is the speed at which the BB exits the end of the barrel. Typically, FPS measurements given on a product page use 0.20g BBs, which are generally considered too light for field-use. As such, a heavier, more effective BB will have a lower FPS. Look at this chart^[i9] for a better idea of how BB weight affects FPS.

Miscellaneous

Battery - There are three standards for battery connectors often found in airsoft guns: Tamiya^[i10], small Tamiya^[i11], and Deans^[i12]. Additionally, there are a few standard battery form-factors: butterfly^[i13], stick^[i14], and large^[i15]. The Deans connector is considered the best of the connectors due to it's better conductivity and simplicity^[r8].

Pricing

One of the most tedious challenges for a new airsoft shopper is developing an understanding of which prices are good and which aren't. Even once you've established an understanding of AEG pricing, you still need magazines, batteries, eye protection, ammo, and plenty of other things. This segment should help orient new shoppers with the prices they should expect to pay for high- or low-quality items from any category. Unfortunately, this segment will be the one most likely to become outdated. As such, note the time and date of posting.
Rifles Airsoft rifles are easily categorized into three brackets based on pricerange. Many younger airsofters get into the hobby with an affordable low-end AEG purchased with birthday money. But for those getting into airsoft with a bit of disposable income the mid-range rifles will bypass many of the frustrations associated with low-end equipment.

Low-end ($100-150): Very few experienced airsofters will recommend buying a gun whose MSRP is less than $100 (sales excluded). At that pricepoint, you will probably end up with either a JG or low-end CYMA rifle. Rifles in this pricerange will generally have aluminum body construction, cheap plastic furniture, and a pot metal gearbox. However, if treated well (not thrown around) even these can last a long time and perform competitively. Additionally, the right model may have significant potential for upgrading since low-end body construction won't really impact performance. It is worth noting that at the entry level lots of sellers will include a battery and a simple charger (be sure to check before buying).
Mid-range ($150-300): This pricerange is a lot safer than the low-end when it comes to getting your money's worth. This pricerange's most frequently recommended brands include: G&G (for the M4 platform), CYMA (for a higher-quality AK platform), G&P (high-quality metal externals). At this level you can expect durable, competitively performing internals and either solid metal externals or high-quality polymer externals. These rifles can take some punishment, some even as much as their real-steel counterparts. At this level most sellers will include nothing but the rifle itself and one magazine.
High-end ($300+): This is the top-tier pricerange. For AEGs at this pricerange you are paying for strict quality control and high-quality internals and externals or a novelty weapon like an LMG or GBB sniper. For performance AEGs, many recommend ICS (for AR-15 platforms), LCT (for their AK platforms), VFC (for SCARs), Krytac (M4 platform), G&P, Real Sword (real-steel guns with airsoft guts), and Tokyo Marui (considered the golden standard in airsoft). At this level you should expect externals comparable to real-steel weapons and powerful, precise, durable, upgradeable internals or advanced features like high-quality electric blowback or a built-in MOSFET to handle more powerful batteries. This is also the entry-level for GBBRs (a market with which I am personally unfamiliar, so I can't provide solid information).

Sidearms I've chosen to categorize sidearms in airsoft into three categories: basic, advanced, and novelty. The basic category is for sidearms which perform acceptably within 5-10 meters and can be used for fields with a minimum-engagement-distance for rifles. The advanced category is for sidearms with higher quality construction, more power and precision, and features like gas blowback. The novelty category is self-explanatory; it includes anything that is more fun than practical like grenade launchers or Co2 revolvers.

Basic (<$50): This price point will get you a very specific type of sidearm: a non-blowback Co2-based pistol that will fire BBs. You can't fairly expect much more. These sidearms will not last very long without careful maintenance, so unless absolutely necessary, most recommend jumping straight to an advanced sidearm.
Advanced ($100+): The $100-150 price range is where the majority of airsoft GBBPs compete. In this range you can expect either high-quality polymer or metal construction, gas blowback, and realistic functions like slide-locking when empty or single-action triggers. There are a wide variety of recommended brands in this market, but some of the most notable include: Tokyo Marui, KJW, WE (also known as WE-Tech; known for their good knock-off Glocks), and KWA. If you intend to use any of these in a match, expect to spend $40-60 on two extra magazines otherwise you'll find yourself spending more time reloading than shooting. Note: Any gas-powered sidearm (regardless of whether it is Co2, green gas, or propane) will need lubrication of the moving parts every once in a while. See the bibliography for some guides on how to do that if you decide you want a gas-powered sidearm.
Novelty ($???): The novelty category really includes only two types of sidearms: grenade launchers and revolvers. Grenade launchers vary from under-barrel launchers to revolver-style room-clearing monsters. For the simpler designs, expect to pay about $50 for the launcher itself (either an under-barrel or single-shell pocket cannon; sometimes include one shell) and $20-40 for each additional shell. For the more advanced launchers, expect to pay $150-220 for the launcher (without any shells) plus the same $20-40 for each shell. The other novelty sidearm option is the Co2 revolver. Most Co2 revolvers are between $65-150 and include an appropriate number of single-round shells (depending on whether the revolver holds 6, 8, or some other number of shells). Extra shells will generally cost $10-20 for 6 depending on the manufacturer. You can expect metal construction and good durability, but performance (fire rate and magazine capacity) and upgradeability will suffer by the nature of the platform.

Magazines Magazine prices are generally alike based on with which mechanism they're associated. AEG rifle magazines^[i16], GBB rifle magazines^[i17], AEP magazines^[i18], Co2 pistol magazines^[i19], and GBB pistol magazines^[i20]. Generally, a more popular model will have cheaper magazines relative to its competition.

AEG rifle magazines: There are four categories for AEG rifle magazines: Real-cap (similar to low-cap^[i21]), mid-cap^[i22], high-cap^[i23], and drum^[i24]. Real-cap magazines generally hold as many rounds as their real-steel counterparts while low-caps hold slightly above or slightly less than 100 rounds. Low-caps/real-caps tend to feed really well because of the simplicity of the mechanism (a spring in a chute). Real-/low-caps tend to cost $10-15 per magazine which is more than mid-/high-caps because of the low demand. Mid-caps are the most popular magazine for veteran airsofters. Mid-caps will generally hold 140-200 rounds and cost $4-7 per magazine depending on the platform and quantity. Mid-caps are popular because they tend to feed well and don't rattle like high-caps. High-caps generally hold anywhere from 300-600+ rounds depending on the platform and cost around $10-15 per magazine. Drum mags are the least common and most complicated of the four. As such, they tend to cost $50-100 per drum, but hold anywhere from 1500-3000+ rounds and feature automatic/electric winding. Few people find drum mags necessary because of how many rounds a high-cap can hold.
GBB rifle magazines: GBBR magazines cost $40-60 per magazine and have capacity similar to a real-cap or low-cap. These cost far more than their AEG counterparts because the magazine in a GBBR holds the gas and needs to withstand the greater forces exerted on it.
AEP magazines: AEP magazines can cost anywhere within $10-50 depending on the popularity of the AEP and the capacity of the magazine.
Co2 pistol magazines: Co2 pistol magazines tend to cost between $20-35 depending on the popularity of the pistol and the capacity of the magazine.
GBB pistol magazines: GBB pistol magazines have the largest market of the sidearms. GBBP magazines cost around $25-50 depending on the popularity of the pistol and whether or not it's an extended version. GBBP magazines need special operation and care not necessary for AEG/AEP magazines. There are a few guides to maintenance of GBBPs and their magazines linked in the bibliography.

Batteries When it comes to batteries, no experienced airsofter will tell you to buy a battery that isn't a LiPo. While NiCad an NiMh batteries are idiot-proof and nearly bullet proof, LiPos provide far better performance and can be had for cheaper. There are three items required for the proper care and ownership of LiPo batteries: a smart charger, a voltage checker, and the battery itself. See this LiPo guide^[r2] for a comprehensive intro to LiPo batteries.

Smart charger: A smart charger is a charger with the ability to read the per-cell voltages of the battery and charge/discharge the cells to keep the cells balanced. Smart chargers are generally priced based on how many cells they can support. For airsoft, you will never need more than a 3-cell LiPo. The simplest balance chargers will simply charge a 2-cell or 3-cell LiPo to a preset voltage per cell (usually 4.2v per cell) through the balance lead. The simple balance chargers can cost as little as $5, but will take a long time to charge more than one battery. A mid-range smart charger supports more advanced functions including charging to any voltage, discharging for storage, real-time per-cell voltage readings, and much faster charging. The most popular pricepoint for a smart charger is $25. Anything beyond that is overkill for airsoft.
Voltage checker: A voltage checker is a simple device which connects to the balance lead on a LiPo and displays the voltages of each cell to make sure the cells are balanced. The voltage checker doesn't charge, balance, or discharge the cells (aside from the small current required to power the display), but it can be carried in one's pocket during a game to prevent overuse of a LiPo. Voltage checkers can be found for as little as $3-10.
Battery: There are three parameters to consider when buying a battery: size^[i25], voltage, and capacity. If you are not yet familiar with the size limits of your rifle, the safest bet is to go with a 2-cell stick-type battery. The voltage of the battery is generally going to be one of two options: 7.4v^[i26] or 11.1v^[i27]. Any AEG purchased by a well-researched buyer like you will support a 7.4v LiPo. On the other hand, an 11.1v LiPo will require a MOSFET (either a built-in one or an aftermarket one) to run safely otherwise the trigger contacts will get burnt from arcing. On the topic of capacity, there's a rule of thumb: 1 milliamp hour (mAh) equates to 2 rounds fired. That means that a 1200mAh battery should be able to fire 2400 rounds before being fully drained. Your mileage will vary when it comes to how long a battery will last you; I've played hour-long rounds where I fire less than 100 shots and some where I've had to go back to basecamp twice to get a new battery. A simple 1200mAh 2-cell 7.4v battery can be had for about $7. Be sure to check the battery plug-type^[i28] before buying though! I personally recommend HobbyKing because of their competitive pricing and relatively cheap international shipping.

BBs Airsoft BBs are basically just plastic. The more plastic you're buying, the more you pay. There are two parameters to consider when buying BBs: the weight and the brand. For an indoor CQB game, the weight of the BB won't matter as much because range matters less. For an outdoor game, a low-end or mid-range AEG will do best with 0.25g or 0.28g BBs. High-end AEGs, DMRs, and BASRs can make effective use of 0.36g, or even 0.40g+ BBs. When it comes to brand, there are lots of conflicting tier-lists when researching this topic, so I recommend simply using a trusted retailer instead of wading through that mess yourself. See this guide^[r9] for a more in-depth guide to BBs. You can expect to pay about $5 per 5000 BBs at the lower weights, $8 per 2500 at the mid-weights, and about $18 for 2000 at the highest weights. JustAirsoftAmmo.com is a highly recommended site for buying BBs, but supporting your local shop or field by buying from them is always a respectable decision.
Eye Protection Eye protection is the one piece of equipment whose failure will have lasting consequences off the field. People have gone blind playing airsoft. Bad eye pro will hinder your visibility on the field as well. Good, high-quality eye pro can be had for as little as $30. The highest-end equipment can cost $130 for a full-mask with amenities like electric fans to keep the lenses from fogging.

Where to Buy

Now that you've figured out exactly what you want to buy and how much you expect to pay, you'll want to know from whom you should buy. This section is difficult to categorize because most retailers have a selection which spans many categories. The two most defining traits of an airsoft retailer are the location and size. The categories will be: Domestic (US-based, large), International (Non-US-based, large), Local (US-based, small), Non-Retail (peer-to-peer sales), and Miscellaneous (Non-airsoft specfic). Each entry will include information about shipping, pricing, and erroneous shipping rates (how often they get your order wrong), as well as a list of well-reputed retailers and some to stay away from. Warning: Airsoft is an immature market, which means that any airsoft-specific retailer you deal with will encounter more problems (items DoA, damaged, wrong item, etc.) than the average retailer in other industries.

Domestic - These are big retailers who frequently ship to all areas of the USA. Most of these are headquartered in California. Typically, domestic orders within the US will take 1-7 business days to arrive once they've been put into the postal system. The prices set by these major retailers are generally considered the standard to which other sellers are compared. Even the biggest retailers in the US airsoft market are still relatively small; as a result, they will get your order wrong at some point. Different retailers have different reputations when it comes to erroneous shipping rates, so check on a seller's reputation before making your first purchase. Recommended retailers include: Evike, Airsoft GI, Airsoft Extreme, Air Rattle, Airsoft Atlanta, Clandestine Airsoft, Airsoft Station, Amped Airsoft, Airsoft Megastore, JustAirsoftAmmo, Brill Armory.
International - These are big retailers who ship internationally. Most of these are headquartered in Hong Kong, China. Orders from Hong Kong can take up to three months to arrive after entering the Chinese postal system, but the average is about two weeks. Additionally, airsoft guns imported into the US need to pass customs inspection which can add up to 3 days to the delivery time or potentially lead to the item being confiscated if the proper precautions^[r10] are not taken by the retailer. Generally purchases from these sellers will be priced competitively against the item's fair market value in the US. However, shipping costs can drastically reduce the competitiveness of the pricing. The biggest problem with importing airsoft guns to the US is the requirement that the order must pass a customs check or be confiscated without notice. Some Chinese sellers have better reputations than others in this respect, so be sure to check a seller's reviews before making your first purchase. Recommended retailers include: Army Panda, EHobbyAsia, Red Wolf Airsoft, Alpha Airsoft, Rainbow 8, Boomarms, KY Airsoft, Taiwan Gun, Gunfire.pl.
Local - These are the smaller, local retailers who might have their stores near you. Pricing for local shops is usually slightly higher than the big online stores, but local shops will usually offer some helpful services like the ability to see and hold the gun you're buying as well as being able to take it home that day. The pricing offered by these brick-and-mortar stores is rarely competitive with the market value set by the big online international and domestic sellers because the overhead associated with running an airsoft store has a greater impact on the bottom line of a small store than a big one. Local retailers don't usually have an issue with erroneous shipping because most of their sales are in-store and if a shipping mistake is made, you could simply go to their store and have it sorted out. Some of the recommended retailers in the section include: Airsoft Junkiez (Georgia), Ballahack Airsoft (Virginia), BG Airsoft (Kentucky), East Coast Airsoft (Maryland).
Non-retail - This includes options like swap-meets, ebay, craigslist, and other peer-to-peer sales. Unlike the other options listed, non-retail sellers will usually be selling used goods. As with any other hobby, there are pros and cons to using this option, and most will recommend sticking to retail until you have the experience to make used airsoft purchases with confidence. With regards to pricing, in-person exchanges can usually be found well below MSRP while online options like ebay will deviate less from the standard. The term "erroneous shipping rate" doesn't really apply to in-person sales, but the parallel would be broken, damaged, or malfunctioning goods. With in-person exchanges like swap-meets or craigslist, there is no mechanism of accountability. That is, if you find something wrong with the purchase after you've left the meeting place, there really isn't any way to receive recompense. For online options, ebay will aggressively defend the buyer in all purchases. I can't evaluate other online peer-to-peer options because I am unfamiliar.
Miscellaneous - These are retailers who do not specialize in airsoft, but may have an inventory of interest to airsoft shoppers. For gear, many recommend: OpTactical, LBX, Military1st, UK Tactical, or a nearby hunting or sporting goods shop. For Russian gear, see Grey Shop. For batteries and battery accessories, see Hobby King. For optics (sights and scopes), see Optics Planet. I don't have the experience required to evaluate the pricing and erroneous shipping rates for these shops.

Image Bibliography: Imgur album
This is a list of images used in this guide. The numbers are associated with the bracketed numbers after each image link (denoted with an 'i') in the text. Un-numbered entries are not referenced in the text, just interesting or informative.

Resource Bibliography:
This is a list of information resources used in this guide. The numbers are associated with the bracketed numbers after each resource link (denoted with an 'r') in the text. Un-numbered entries are not referenced in the text, but are interesting or informative.

Thanks for reading! I hope this was helpful. If you have any suggestions, corrections, or better links, please leave a comment. If you are reading this after it has become archived, PM me with the above.
EDIT: AKs use short-type motors. EDIT: Saved a couple thousand characters by rehosting all used images to Imgur. See Imgur album linked in the image bibliography for original links. EDIT: Fixed typo in Pricing section. Also rewrote a few words in the bibliography descriptions.

Need help understanding source of Dutch immigration record

Biblical inerrancy and the enduring theological problem of Biblical errors — and a "graded" scale of errors [Part 2]

This is the second part of a four-part post, continued from here.
Part one introduced many of the more general theological and epistemological problems of Biblical inerrancy, and covered the first five categories of error.
This post will finish cover the rest of category 5, and then the second installment of categories, from #6 up to the first part of category 10. I hope that by the end of my posts, exactly what's at stake here for all Christians — in terms of what sort of material in the Bible is truly open to the charge of "error," and why this has profound theological consequences — will have fully come into view.
(Continued from Part 1)
Again, there are several pieces of evidence which strongly suggest that Zechariah 9:9 only originally intended to imply a single donkey. For one, this verse is closely related to Genesis 49:11, both thematically and syntactically, and which even more clearly displays this grammatical device of conjunctive specification referred to earlier. Proverbs 24:30 is another example of a verse using the same device; and almost certainly Zechariah 13:7, too. Further, the quotation of Zechariah 9:9 in the Gospel of John's version of the triumphal entry (12:15) appears to have understood the grammatical device in Zechariah 9:9 properly, citing only the colt.
This plainly contradicts Matthew 21:7, however, which clearly refers back to both a "donkey" and "colt" from Zechariah in its actual narrative description of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the syntax in this same verse supports that Matthew intended to portray Jesus as truly riding both donkeys at the same time in some way, too — which plays against the occasional apologetic suggestion that Jesus rode only on the young donkey but that its mother or father was ahead of it for guidance, and with the other gospels only mentioning the colt.
6. Inner-Biblical misattribution and mistranslations
While the previous category had to do with the largely unspoken literary dependence of one Biblical text upon another, this category has to do with Biblical texts that explicitly or otherwise consciously refer back to another text as (presumably) sacred scripture — largely consisting of the New Testament's various references to and citations of the Hebrew Bible.
I've included two different types of potential errors that might arise in the course of this.
The first is when a New Testament author appears to attribute one of their citations of the Hebrew Bible to the wrong author or book. This has been of some concern to historic interpreters. For instance, the seminal church father Jerome reports that the Christian critic Porphyry (late third century) had already criticized the gospel authors for this — in particular, the attribution of the quotation in Mark 1:2 to the Book of Isaiah, where this citation appears to at least initially be derived from the Book of Malachi. In tandem with this, we can actually see an effort on the part of early scribes of Mark to remove this problematic reference to "Isaiah."
Similarly, apologists today seek to explain how things like the apparently misattribution of the reference in Matthew 27:9-10 to Jeremiah might be understood. Philip Comfort writes, for example, that "Matthew's ascription of the prophecy to Jeremiah is not wrong, because although the quotation comes mainly from Zech 11:12-13, it also comes from Jer 19:1-11; 32:6-9." By contrast, Maarten Menken, in his study of these verses in Matthew, speaks of the "apparently false ascription of the quote to Jeremiah." But early Christian scribes were also uncomfortable with this, either just deleting the reference to "Jeremiah" or — strangely — changing it to "Isaiah." (Interestingly, just recently there's been a collection of scholarly essays published entitled Composite Citations in Antiquity, which may further elucidate the types of quotation and citation that we find in places like Matthew 27:9-10.)
Now, on one hand, we could probably concede that things like this are fairly benign. It's hard to see how any of these erroneous attributions could be understood as very theological consequential in and of themselves. At the same time though, it's also very difficult to avoid the prospect that these really do qualify as genuine lapses of memory and/or errors by the authors; and again, as Origen had already stated, "we believe the Gospels to have been recorded with precision with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and that those who wrote them did not err when they related [things] from memory" (Comm. Matt. 16.12).[24]
Certainly, those like Jerome recognized that criticisms such as Porphyry's really did threaten the divine inspiration of Scripture, and thus sought to dispel them on purely textual grounds — that these erroneous attributions simply could not have been written by the original gospel authors themselves, and must have only arisen in later manuscripts of the gospels, via careless scribes. Modern textual critics, however, are virtually unanimous in the evidence favoring that the erroneous attribution in passages like Mark 1:2 was original.[24]
If the first type of error in this category could still be considered fairly benign in and of itself, the second type of error is much less so. This consists of those instances where a New Testament author has not just misattributed something in the Hebrew Bible to the wrong author, but has actually misquoted a line from it — usually via their dependence on an erroneous translation from the Septuagint.
This is of course somewhat similar to the errors in category #4, where one Biblical author appears to have replicated or produced an error in conjunction with another Biblical text. But the fact that this current category pertains mainly to errors that arose in the course of a Biblical text's translation to another language opens up the possibility of more severe misunderstanding. Further, in the particular way that some of these (mis)translations were utilized in the New Testament, they become more potentially theologically significant in and of themselves, too.
In the interest of space, I'll mention just a few examples of mistranslated texts from the Hebrew Bible/Septuagint that are used in the New Testament, as well as their larger significance.
The first is the quotation of Psalm 40:6 in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here in the original Hebrew text, what suggested the Psalmist's "ear" being "opened" to receive a particular bit of divine instruction — pertaining to God's apparent displeasure over animal sacrifices — somehow became, in the Septuagint's translation, a "body" being "prepared" for the him, seemingly in lieu of these sacrifices. This was then taken by the author of Hebrews to suggest that the speaker of the Psalm wasn't David, as the normal superscription reads, but in fact Christ himself, speaking about the body that had been "prepared" for him in advance of his incarnation, and which would be used to vicariously bear humanity's sin.
A second example is the quotation of Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21:16. Here in this Psalm — in what's admittedly a somewhat obscure passage — what originally seems to have suggested God's adversarial strength being established "out of the mouth of babies and infants" (used "to vanquish the enemy and the avenger") was understood by the Septuagint translator to refer to the establishment of "praise" from these children, not strength. This becomes problematic in Matthew 21:16 where Jesus, in response to the chief priests and scribes in Jerusalem, who've just expressed indignation that some children have apparently celebrated Jesus as the messiah, quotes the Septuagint's version of Psalm 8:2 in an attempt to justify this.
Not only does the contextual sense of the passage from the Psalms not support its application to the scenario in which Jesus has applied it, however, but the entire incident seems historically unlikely as well, and thus vulnerable to the charge that the author of Matthew has simply fabricated this incident. That is, even if we assume that the historical Jesus had some knowledge of the Septuagint, for him to have used it to make a serious theological point in response to priests and scribes in Jerusalem — especially when the Septuagint disagrees with the Hebrew text here, and apparently misunderstood it — strains credulity.[25]
I'm actually going to discuss this example in a related later category, too; but in any case, it's eminently arguable that the early Christian use of Isaiah 7:14 — which infamously saw, in this verse, a prophecy of Jesus' birth from a "virgin" — is also at least partially dependent on a (mis)translation of this passage in the Septuagint.
Now, there's some argument to be made that the original Hebrew word in contention here could signify virginity in some contexts. But by the same token, the particular word that the Septuagint used in its translation here was conceptually-loaded to denote an actual lack of sexual intercourse in a way that goes beyond the meaning of the Hebrew; and in any case, most importantly, it seems that it was precisely this loaded term in the Septuagint that led early Christian interpreters to misconstrue the broader original intention of the passage itself anyways.[26] Again, though, more on this later.
7. Scientific errors
Beginning with this category, we're starting to get into some of the types of purported Biblical errors that are more widely known.
For a couple of reasons, however, I was reticent to place claims of scientific errors this high on the list, and had originally considered putting it closer to the earlier category of geographical errors. But after some thought, I think its placement is justified — especially because it also leads into next category so naturally, via the bridge of paleontology and archaeology.
One reason for my reticence was that the types of Biblical claims and language that may be vulnerable to the charge of error here intersect with something that I mentioned in the section Non-starters? in part one: the use of language like the "corners" or "pillars of the earth" — which, again, might be understood as purely idiomatic, and thus not fairly criticized on scientific grounds. Further, we have to bear in mind what's almost become a dictum today, that no part of the Bible was intended as a science manual; or, in a formulation going back to the time of Galileo, that the primary purpose of the Bible is to teach people the path to heaven, and not how the heavens were made.
On the other hand, though, if we're conscious of the history of Biblical interpretation — including that which relates this to inerrancy in particular — it's clear that most interpreters recognized that there are genuinely "scientific" claims made in the Bible, and that these must be true if it's really divinely inspired. Nowhere is this more emblematic than in Thomas Aquinas' well-known insistence that "the spirit of prophecy inspires the prophets even about conclusions of the sciences." Now, there's probably not a 1:1 correspondence between "sciences" in the sense that Thomas used it here — in the original Latin, scientiae — and how we understand science today (which will also apply to the original terms that lie behind what's translated as "science" in the further quotations below).
Even still, though, this term scientia was used to denote a kind of exact knowledge that certainly included things like measurements and the study of the natural world, which we recognize today as characteristic of the natural sciences. In fact, the very context in which Thomas Aquinas made the statement quoted above was his discussion of the Biblical claim of the the earth being established and positioned "above the [celestial] waters."[27]
Further, we see a clear trajectory from this to formulations of inerrancy toward the 20th century. For example, drawing on a principle formulated by Augustine, Pope Leo XIII's 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus reiterated — precisely in the context of defending Biblical inerrancy — that "nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures" (§23). The original formulation of this principle by Augustine went even further, suggesting that the Christian faithful shouldn't hesitate to assume that anything in these "sciences" that conflicted with Biblical truth was wrong.[28]
In any case, in terms of specific Biblical examples, the creation narrative of Genesis 1 has always been controversial in regard to its implications about the formation of our world. For example, discussion of the relationship between the "days" of creation, the sun, and light features prominently in Augustine's De Genesi Ad Litteram 1.9.15–1.10.22; and it's picked back up in a famous section shortly thereafter, where this is framed in a broader context of the natural sciences: considerations about "the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth."[29]
Incidentally, scientific debates pertaining to the sun and sunlight also surfaced as a prominent issue in the wake of Copernicus, and in the Galileo affair, particularly in relation to the interpretation of an incident in the tenth chapter of the Book of Joshua. Parallel to this, another historically controversial aspect of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 is that of the "waters above the firmament" — which directly relates to the dictum of Thomas Aquinas quoted above. And, in fact, the concept of the firmament continues to be a source of ongoing controversy.[30]
Even more relevant for my current purposes, however, is the way in which these celestial "waters" were dealt with by the early Church Fathers and by medieval Christian interpreters. Like Thomas Aquinas, they drew a line in the sand as it relates to the divine inspiration of the Bible: if the Biblical texts say that there's some type of celestial waters, these waters must be there in some form.[31]
Moving beyond the opening chapter of Genesis, however, in Genesis 30:25-43 we find what appears to be a pseudoscientific "impression" theory of inheritance: one that was widely held in antiquity, all the way up to the 19th century. Space doesn't allow me to get into this fully, and I'll have to relegate a lot of what I had to my endnote; but to summarize as briefly as possible, Genesis portrays the patriarch Jacob as selectively breeding certain characteristics for his sheep by having them visually look at similarly characteristic objects while they're mating.[32]
Other dubious phenomena which appear in the Book of Genesis were also defended by premodern interpreters on pseudoscientific grounds: including purported paleontological evidence for giants (see Genesis 6:1-4), as well as ethnological claims of certain preternaturally long-lived peoples, used to bolster the historicity of the extremely long lives of the patriarchs from the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.[33]
Now, to be sure, whereas premodern interpreters accepted the historicity of virtually all Biblical narratives, many modern Christian exegetes and theologians tend to interpret Genesis and other texts from the Hebrew Bible in a much different way. But it's also hard to avoid the impression that this flight from historicity that modern interpretation often entails — especially if it's used to protect the doctrine of inerrancy in particular — is more the product of post hoc rationalization than anything else. Ironically then, this is vulnerable to the charge of just being a modern twist on a more ancient apologetic rationalization: e.g. Augustine's explanation of the light of the creation days or the celestial waters, which I'll discuss further below.
[Edit: Add a reference to Collins' "Inerrancy Studies and the Old Testament: 'Ancient Science' in the Hebrew Bible."
8. Historical errors
As mentioned earlier, this category follows naturally from the previous one, via the bridge of paleontology and archaeology. In fact, I think there are plenty of blurred lines between "scientific" and "historical" error here, insofar as it's precisely scientific evidence which indicates, for example, apparent historical anachronisms in the earliest books of the Hebrew Bible and so on.
For example, both implicit and explicit details in Genesis seem to place the origins of humanity in the late Neolithic or Chalcolithic era, some 6,000 years ago — which is also bolstered by a similar calculation of the age of the world and humanity that was shared by virtually all Jewish and Christian interpreters up until the 19th century. Of course, however, the modern scientific consensus is that the origin of humanity is to be located many tens of thousands of years ago, in the Middle Paleolithic.
In an attempt to harmonize the Biblical and historical evidence here, progressive Christian apologists, starting mainly in the 19th century, began suggesting that the early genealogies in Genesis — which, again, were the main basis for the premodern Jewish and Christian calculation of the age of humanity — were in fact telescoped: that some names were intentionally omitted from them, and that some amount of lost historical time might be found in these implicit "gaps." But this has been all but unanimously rejected by modern Biblical scholars, who've rightly recognized that the earliest genealogies in Genesis — which actually bring us all way up to the late Bronze Age, shortly before the time of the Egyptian exodus — are explicitly gap-less. Further, there's also other internal evidence from Genesis, too, such as the presence of developed agriculture, that suggests a setting at least in the late Neolithic or Chalcolithic.[34]
More recently, progressive apologists have suggested that Adam and Eve weren't really the first Homo sapiens, as it were, but merely two who were "selected" by God from a wider population of Homo sapiens after a suitable time of cognitive and cultural development, and intended to be the progenitors of a new type of humanity. As Kenneth Kemp puts it in a well-known article in the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, "[o]ut of this population, God selects two and endows them with intellects by creating for them rational souls." Although this suggestion has been appealing to many, there are serious problems with it that have largely gone unrecognized.[35]
There are other proposed Biblical anachronisms that I'm personally less familiar with: for example, the apparent presence of domesticated camels at an earlier time and place than is believed to be historically accurate. Similarly, the particular Egyptian setting of the narratives of Joseph and Moses in Genesis and Exodus may suggest anachronisms in terms of city names and other details, with the ostensible historical setting being the early/mid 2nd millennium BCE, but particular geographical and toponymic details in the texts instead suggesting some time into the 1st millennium BCE.[36]
Moving forward in the canonical Bible, the Book of Daniel is particularly infamous for purported historical inaccuracies. These have centered on the elusive figure of Darius the Mede, as well as problems pertaining to Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar. Lesser known are the problems with the historical description of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11:40-45. But due both to space constraints as well as a personal unfamiliarity with some of these issues, though, I'll again just refer interested readers to other studies here.[37]
When it comes to the New Testament gospels and books like Acts, it's sometimes thought that here we're confronted with a different type of literature. Whereas it's been argued that some earlier narratives in the Hebrew Bible were intentionally legendary and exaggerated — even though, as suggested, it was rarely interpreted this way by premodern Christian interpreters — the NT gospels and Acts are thought to be closer to "history" as we know it today.
But the line separating the two can in fact be arbitrary, and the historical veracity and plausibility of a number of things in the NT have been called into question, too, for a variety of reasons. This is particularly the case for the infancy narratives and passion/burial narratives in the gospels: in particular, things like the census during the time of Quirinius and its scope (which had already been criticized in Voltaire's 1766/67 Les Questions de Zapata, to which was appended the question "how could a book be inspired if there were one single untruth in it?"); Herod's massacre of infants; the purported Passover custom of the release of a prisoner — especially the version of this account that we find in Matthew; the tearing of the Temple's curtain at the moment of Jesus' death; the presence of a tomb guard at Jesus' tomb; the resurrection of some of the blessed dead in Jerusalem from their tombs and their appearance in the city, and so on.
Again, there are several different factors that lead modern interpreters to question the historical veracity of various details and narratives in the Hebrew Bible and the NT; though we might also exercise caution when the historical veracity of something is called into question based on some extrabiblical knowledge, which is itself imperfect. All of that being said, unfortunately space doesn't allow any further discussion of this.
9. Fictionalization: a problem of (in)credulity and non-clarity
This category, and the way it relates to "error" in the more traditional sense, is in some ways a bit more abstract than the others. If category #8 focused on individual instances of historical errors, this gets at a broader problem: Biblical texts and narratives giving the misleading impression that they're historical, but when the best evidence suggests that they're actually "fictionalized."
Obviously there's a lot of crossover with the previous category, as one of the hallmarks of fictionalization is precisely the absence of historical verisimilitude.
Ironically though, fictionalization is sometimes appealed to in the course of apologetic defenses against criticism of a Biblical text. That is, one response to apparent historical errors or implausibilities would be to suggest that these elements were never intended to be historical in the first place, instead belonging to the literary forms associated with legend or some other type of non-literal, non-historical writing. This has been prominently argued for the Book of Genesis in particular, but also other Biblical books too, including the Former Prophets, Daniel, and now even the New Testament gospels.[38]
As a surrejoinder to this sort of apologetic defense, though, it might be suggested that this is precisely the impression that we do get from these texts: that many of these narratives are presented and appear as if they're historical; or in any case, that if not, Scripture is hopelessly misleading in this regard. To put it most simply then, this category highlights instances where, even if we can say that a particular Biblical author themselves likely understood one of their own narratives as "fictional" and/or intended it to be read that way by audiences, we're brought into confusion by the failure of the author to clearly present the material as such.
This problem connects with several other issues, too. For one, if some of the earlier Hebrew Bible narratives weren't truly intended to be historical — or strictly historical — in the way they might first seem, one of the most significant "victims" of having been misled in this regard is precisely the other, later Biblical authors themselves. (This obviously also ties into category #5 from my previous post, Inner-Biblical misunderstandings.)
Further, not only did this affect the Biblical authors themselves, but most Christians throughout the history of Christendom, as well.
This also applies to much of Jewish history too; but in any case, for most of Christian history up until the 19th century, the Biblical books — at least those which presented apparent linear, historical narratives — were seen primarily as accurate accounts of events which for all intents and purposes really happened. In fact, Jewish and Christian commentators often upheld the purported historical accuracy and truthfulness of the Biblical accounts precisely in contrast to the writings of Greeks, Romans, and other cultures: Hesiod, Homer and other "pagans" who misled others through fictionalization and mythology.
For example, the first century historian Josephus is at pains to emphasize the accuracy of the history in the Hebrew Bible in distinction to many Greeks and their pseudo-history — those who "have no regard for historical truth, as is proven by their notorious habit of contradicting one another, their failure to preserve records and documents, and their preference for rhetorical display rather than accurate reportage," etc. In fact, as Shaye Cohen describes it, for Josephus "[t]he entire [Hebrew Bible] is seen as a book of history whose veracity is guaranteed by its inspired authorship."[39]
Similar views are readily expressed by early Christians. Theophilus, the patriarch of Antioch in the mid- to later-2nd century, emphasizes that "our teaching is not modern or fictitious [μυθώδης] but older and more true than the uncertain writings of poets/mythographers and other authors who wrote in uncertainty." Similarly Hippolytus of Rome, a very important in the early 3rd century, "argued for study of the Scriptures and not of human traditions and fables which led astray the uneducated (Adv. omn. haer. viii. 19; x.25; Comm. Dan. iv. 19-20)."[40] In this, they oppose even the view of Plato who, even though criticizing those like Hesiod and Homer, could speak positively of mythographers who "do not know the truth about ancient things" and yet "liken[ed] falsehood to the truth as much as possible" (Republic, 382d).
More positively speaking, Origen of Alexandria — often erroneously charged with (or celebrated for) a purported denial of the historicity of Biblical narratives in favor of non-historical approaches — writes that

We must assert . . . that in regard to some things [in the Hebrew Bible] we are clearly aware that the historical fact is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, together with Isaac and Jacob and one wife of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the chief city of Judaea, in which a temple of God was built by Solomon; and thousands of other facts. Indeed the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with purely spiritual meanings. (De Principiis 4.3.4)

Augustine emphasizes that books like Genesis were "not written in a literary style proper to allegory, as in the Song of Songs, but from beginning to end in a style proper to history, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type"; and when it came the truth of these Biblical narratives in relation to that of pagan writings, he painted a very stark contrast: "We, on the other hand, have the support of divine authority in the history of our religion. Accordingly, whatever in secular histories runs counter to it we do not hesitate to brand it as wholly false." (Similarly, regarding the Biblical chronology of the creation of humans, he notes that "we compute from the sacred writings that 6,000 years have not yet passed since the creation of man. Hence, the writings which make reference to far more thousands of years than there have been are vain, and contain no trustworthy authority on the subject."[41])
We find a similar concerns throughout the medieval period.[42] The first real cracks in these assumptions began to appear during the Enlightenment, on behalf of those like Richard Simon, Isaac Vossius, and Spinoza, who prominently questioned long-standing orthodox assumptions about the authorship and historicity of the Hebrew Bible.
This was obviously met with severe criticism by orthodox Protestant and Catholics, as well as Jews. To take a specific example of how a problematic Biblical narrative was handled around this time: in Judges 16:29, Samson destroys the Philistine temple of Dagon by pushing over its two central pillars, one with each hand, killing "about 3,000 men and women" (16:27). The 17th century, the Nonconformist theologian and interpreter Matthew Poole, responding to accusations of historically and architecturally implausible details here, writes

But it is a far more incredible and ridiculous thing to imagine that the penman of this book should feign such a circumstance as this is, if it had been false, whereby he would have utterly overthrown the credit of the whole book; and that he should do this before a people that could easily have confuted him; and that people should have so high a veneration for that book in which they knew so notorious a falsehood to be: these things, I say, are far more absurd to believe, than the truth of this relation.

But these same sorts of criticisms were eventually extended to the New Testament as well — especially by those like Hermann Reimarus, leading up to the 19th century, and well beyond.
(With regard to the Samson narrative referred to above, we still find objections similar to those which Matthew Poole responded to, now in tandem with the fictionalization hypothesis. For example, the late 20th century Catholic Biblical scholar John L McKenzie notes that "the historical quality of heroic tales is always low. This is easy to see in Samson. A palace or temple which could support several thousand people on its roof supported by two central pillars separated by an arm’s length never existed.")
Taking stock of where we're at in the 21st century, the extension of this idea of "legitimate fictionalization" even to the New Testament gospels themselves (as a response to their historical difficulties) is now in full-swing, found among mainstream Christian theologians and interpreters. Yet there's been push-back against this from both conservative Christians, who see this as a compromise of historic orthodoxy and instead prefer more traditional defenses of Biblical historicity, as well as from more progressive Christians and others — including non-Christian critics — who see it as another all-too-convenient strategy of avoidance of legitimate criticism.
However, space again prohibits a more thorough study of this, and all I can really do is supply a short bibliography and an endnote.[43]
For the next couple of categories, it was also hard for me to rank them relative to each other. In fact, category 10 here is somewhat of an umbrella category, which includes several different types of contradictions as sub-categories.
10. Inner-Biblical contradictions
Whereas scientific and historical errors are often argued on the basis of some sort of conflict with "external" knowledge, the purported errors within this category are argued based on internal considerations.
Inner-Biblical contradiction is probably the most well-known category of alleged error. As mentioned in my first post, many of the earliest Christian interpreters who explicitly discussed the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible — and who, again, all affirmed this — did so precisely by mentioning the absence of inner-Biblical tension. And in fact there were any number of works by Christians in antiquity that were largely dedicated to the resolution of Biblical contradictions and other difficulties: by Eusebius, Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, etc.
Even though inner-Biblical contradiction may be the most well-known and perhaps most historically troublesome type of error, though this isn't always for the best reasons. Some Biblical skeptics have done a great disservice both to themselves and to curious laymen by overstating the extent and nature of Biblical contradictions. This is exemplified in popular books like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and on any number of sites online.
In addition to obfuscating the issue itself, this has also given ammunition to Christian apologists who have a vested interest in defending the Bible against contradictions, and who can now more easily issue blanket criticisms of anyone who proposes contradictions, regardless of their legitimacy, based on a kind of ill repute-by-association. Further, it's precisely the over-saturation of hasty and poorly-argued contradictions that I believe has led to common assertions like "I've never seen a convincing contradiction," which are rationalized on the basis of similarly hasty and poorly-argued apologetic responses to these. In other words, the two sides here weaken each other.
As implied, however, there are legitimately proposed contradictions, and it seems to me that the majority of modern Biblical scholars accept that a number of these are truly irreconcilable.
Errors of temporal logic and chronology
I originally had this as a separate category before the current one; but the more I thought about it, the less reason I saw to treat it separately. This sub-category covers Biblical texts in which there's some problem in the order or temporal logic of events which are described, or else in which there's significant disagreement between two related Biblical texts in this regard.
Really, we already encounter significant temporal disparity at several points in the very first chapters of the Bible.
In an earlier category, I briefly discussed the six creation days of Genesis 1. The main problem here pertaining to temporal logic is that the sun is created on the fourth of these days; and yet "days" themselves, as we know them, are necessarily dependent on the (prior) existence of the sun.
This was of concern to both early Jewish and early Christian interpreters, including Philo of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine — many of whom seem to have recognized the importance of countering this precisely in order to dispel the prospect of Biblical absurdity or error.
However, for quite a few of these interpreters, there was little in their suggested answers that's satisfying; and some offered little way out of the conundrum at all. Philo of Alexandria acknowledged the problem, though simply appealed to numerology to try to explain it: that "six" was a number of some mystical significance, and thus that the six creation days didn't suggest an actual ordered sequence at all, but just some nebulous qualitative aspect. Origen offered nothing other than the suggestion that language in texts like these is figurative: "that certain mystical truths are indicated through them." Augustine's main attempted explanation defies even the most generous of credulous latitude.[44]
In light of the profound interpretive gymnastics that one has to do to exonerate the text from the charge of contradiction here, Biblical scholars today are much more willing to acknowledge a real literary if not conceptual carelessness in the writing of the account, with the sun's creation subsequent to apparent solar "days" being a genuine oversight (no matter how exactly this came about).
Ironically, it's highly likely that the "there was evening and there was morning, the nth day" formula that we find throughout Genesis 1 — which is largely responsible for the contradiction — was missing from an early version of the narrative, and that it was only a later editor who added this, not realizing the logical problem this then created.[45] But to be clear, this isn't what we'd call a scribal error or anything, but something that would of course appear in the "official" published version of Genesis itself that was known in antiquity, and still today. (Exodus 20:11 already attests to this.)
Although Genesis 1 may be internally inconsistent in this regard, there's still another temporal problem in the chapter: its relationship to the order of events in Genesis 2.
In Genesis 2, it appears that humans were created even before plants themselves were (2:5-7); but contrast the creation of plants prior to humans in Genesis 1:11-12, on the third day. For that matter, in Genesis 2:7, the first man is created, and only later were "every animal of the field and every bird of the air" created in an attempt to find a suitable "helper"/partner for man, in Genesis 2:18-20. By contrast, birds were created on the fifth day in Genesis 1:20-23, and then only on the sixth day are animals and then humans themselves made. (Obviously Genesis 2 itself also contradicts the scientific evidence for which birds emerged far before humans.)
I've again come right up to the character limit. I've continued with category 10 in a Part 3, to be posted shortly.

what is an annotated bibliography entry video

An annotated bibliography is an APA reference list that includes a brief summary and analysis -- the annotation -- under the reference entry. An annotated bibliography includes: APA Title page; Pages are numbered beginning with title page; APA formatted reference list beginning on own page. References centered and bolded at top of page In MLA style, annotated bibliographies are simply titled Annotated Bibliography or Annotated List of Works Cited. Center the title at the top of the page, and leave only a double-space between the title and the first entry. Include page numbers as you would in an MLA-style paper. The annotation - the notes you have about the source - appear in a new paragraph below its reference entry, indented 0.5 inches from the left margin Annotated bibliography example To use as a template, open the document with Word, replace the text with your own but keep the formatting intact. Put the two together and you have an Annotated Bibliography! An Annotated Bibliography is an organizational tool. An Annotated Bibliography... Is an alphabetical list of all of your source material. Includes sources you may or may not use in your research. Summarizes each resource so you can remember what it's about. An annotated bibliography is really a series of notes about other articles. The purpose of an annotated bibliography is to present an overview of the published literature on a topic by summarizing the key articles. Olin and Uris libraries ([Cornell University] 2008) offers practical advice on preparing an annotated bibliography. An annotated bibliography is a type of student paper in which reference list entries are followed by short descriptions of the work, called annotations. Annotated bibliographies can also constitute one element of a research paper in fields that require bibliographies rather than reference lists. What Is an Annotated Bibliography? An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to books, articles, and documents. Each citation is followed by a brief (usually about 150 words) descriptive and evaluative paragraph, the annotation. The purpose of the annotation is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited. An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to books, articles, and documents that follows the appropriate style format for the discipline (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc). Each citation is followed by a brief (usually about 150 word) descriptive and evaluative paragraph -- the annotation. What is an annotated bibliography? Annotated bibliographies are aggregated lists of resources that correlate with a research topic. Students and researchers actively seek out exceptional resources about a specific research topic and develop of list of the best resources they’ve found.

what is an annotated bibliography entry top

What is an annotated bibliography, How to write one - YouTube

*Please note a verbal error in this video regarding serif v. sans serif fonts. Times New Roman is a SERIF font. Arial or calibri are examples of sans serif... Watch this video to learn how to write an Annotated Bibliograhy entry for Assignment #2. This video shows how to make an initial entry for an annotated bibliography. The entry should clearly identify the source and explain why it's credible. It... Dr Jack Tsonis walks you through the process of taking notes for your Annotated Bibliography (and all other reading!), with particular focus on the process i... A definition of an annotated bibliography, its purpose, and an example of an entry. This project was created with Explain Everything™ Interactive Whiteboard for iPad. APA-MLA Annotated Bibliography: Complete Guide to Writing the Annotated Bib Part 1 - Duration: 5:47. David Taylor 186,952 views Annotated Bibliography exampleFollow up Video: Writing a Literature Review using an Annotated Bibliography:https://youtu.be/XTZrZ2dxTlk These step-by-step directions show how to create an annotated bibliography in Microsoft Word 2007 and 2010. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators ...

Annotated Bibliographies - APA 7th Edition Guide ...

what is an annotated bibliography entry

what is an annotated bibliography entry - win

Annotated Bibliography for Your Dissertation

A Review of the Nebulas Short Story Finalists

The Christians Stole All the Fun Gods

HistoryCommons.org May Go Offline

[ENG 102: Annotated bibliography] Can you guys let me know if this is correct or is it too brief?

Example Format:

Academic material for those studying female sex predators.

The Triumph and Tragedy of the Treaty of Versailles - My 12 year-old’s 10 min documentary for National History Day

Airsoft Buyer's Guide for Noobs

Airsoft Buyer's Guide for Noobs

Types of Airsoft guns

Significant Features

Pricing

Where to Buy

Need help understanding source of Dutch immigration record

Biblical inerrancy and the enduring theological problem of Biblical errors — and a "graded" scale of errors [Part 2]

what is an annotated bibliography entry video

what is an annotated bibliography entry top

What is an annotated bibliography, How to write one - YouTube