What is MOSAIC THEORY? definition of MOSAIC …
Moore (1985: 94) has characterized frontiers between sedentary farmers andmobile foragers as "a cultural mosaic of interspersed communities withvarying subsistence and settlement requirements." The North European Plainbetween 5000 and 3500 b.c.
structure as of this time is the fluid mosaic ..
The difficulties in pinning down a definition of Gnosticism are intimately connected with the controversy about its origins. Was it indeed no more than a heretical offshoot, an eccentric and aberrant branch of Christianity, or was it the latest expression of a long, mostly hidden tradition that had existed for centuries before the Christian era? No one has answered these questions with final authority.
The name Moses is the version of the original Moshe. Moses is a , brother of and . Because his mother (a daughter of Levi) was the aunt of his father , Moses was both a grandson and a great-grandson of Levi (Exodus 6:20). (Actually, there are some generations missing because between Levi and Moses there are about four centuries). Moses is also often considered the author of the and is the first leader of .
The fluid-mosaic model describes the plasma membrane of animal cells
Proteins and substances such as cholesterol become embedded in the bilayer, giving the membrane the look of a mosaic. Because the plasma membrane has the consistency of vegetable oil at body temperature, the proteins and other substances are able to move across it. That’s why the plasma membrane is described using the -mosaic model.
The Mosaic Panel of Constantine IX and Zoe in Saint …
The fluid-mosaic model describes the plasma membrane of animal cells. The plasma membrane that surrounds these cells has two layers (a ) of (fats with phosphorous attached), which at body temperature are like vegetable oil (fluid). And the structure of the plasma membrane supports the old saying, “Oil and water don’t mix.”
One gene–one enzyme hypothesis - Wikipedia
Applying this position to a study of Israelite history, and incorporating his comparative study of Canaanite and Egyptian religion, he concluded that Israel's religious life did not deteriorate from a high point at the time of Moses. Rather, it started as a primitive astral religion, and developed later into a cult of Yahweh. On this basis, he regarded most of the Pentateuchal foundational document as exilic in date.
Table 1: Selected Passages Confirming Mosaic Authorship
One of the most confusing voices comes from the discipline of political science. In his Walgreen Lectures at the University of Chicago in 1951, émigré scholar Eric Voegelin rose to the defense of what he called the "classic and Christian tradition" against what he perceived as the "growth of Gnosticism." This opening salvo was followed by such books as , the multivolume , and . Voegelin became a prophet of a new theory of history, in which Gnosticism played a most nefarious role. All modern totalitarian ideologies were in some way spiritually related to Gnosticism, said Voegelin. Marxists, Nazis, and just about everybody else the good professor found reprehensible were in reality Gnostics, engaged in "immanentizing the eschaton" by reconstituting society into a heaven on earth. Since Gnostics did not accept the conventional Christian eschaton of heaven and hell, Voegelin concluded that they must be engaged in a millenarian revolutionizing of earthly existence. At the same time, Voegelin was bound to admit that the Gnostics regarded the earthly realm as generally hopeless and unredeemable. One wonders how the unredeemable earthly kingdom could be turned into the "immanentized eschaton" of an earthly utopia. That Voegelin's new Gnostics had no knowledge of or sympathy with historical Gnosticism did not bother him either. Gnostics they were, and that was that.
What is the documentary hypothesis
But it was in vain that I looked for the light which was to be shed from this source on the historical and prophetical books. On the contrary, my enjoyment of the latter was marred by the Law; it did not bring them any nearer me, but intruded itself uneasily, like a ghost that makes a noise indeed, but is not visible and really effects nothing. Even where there were points of contact between it and them, differences also made themselves felt, and I found it impossible to give a candid decision in favour of the priority of the Law. Dimly I began to perceive that throughout there was between them all the difference that separates two wholly distinct worlds. Yet, so far from attaining clear conceptions, I only fell into deeper confusion, which was worse confounded by the explanations of Ewald in the second volume of history of Israel. At last, in the course of a casual visit in Göttingen in the summer of 1867, I learned through Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the law later than the Prophets, and, almost without knowing his reasons for the hypothesis, I was prepared to accept it; I readily acknowledged to myself the possibility of understanding Hebrew antiquity without the book of the Torah.