In 1993, Jacques Dutka shared information about the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes, reportedly nicknamed “’New Plato’” (Fisher, 1982, p. 803).  Dutka said, “About 230 B.C., Eratosthenes of Cyrene (275-194 B.C.) made a measurement of the circumference of the Earth, assumed spherical in form” (Dutka, 1993, p. 55). Dutka goes on and describes that “His method was based on a remarkably simple proportion relating the difference between the latitudes of two stations on the same meridian, obtained from celestial observations, and their terrestrial distance apart” (Dutka p. 55). Having said that, Eratosthenes had a career. Specifically, Kelly Trumble mentioned that Eratosthenes, held the prestigious job of Librarian at the Library of Alexandria (Trumble, 2003 p. 24).

Centuries after Eratosthenes lived, the Apostle Paul said, “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (NIV, Rom 4:25). God does not remember the sins of the justified, though man records history for His or man’s purposes. With that in mind, the library’s total contents have been under contention. Roger S. Bagnall shared the state of research in the year 2002. Bagnall said, “Moreover, if we are to give any credence to these numbers, why should we not be consistent in our credulity and believe that Demetrios of Phaleron already had amassed 200,000 volumes in the first decade of the third century B.C. as Pseudo-Aristeas says” (Bagnall, 2002, p.). According to Daniel Heller-Roazen, the Library of Alexandria may have burned down in “the fourth century” (Heller-Roazen, 2002, p. 149) BC.

With growing interest in astronomy and the mathematical sciences as a computer science major, my extracurricular activities are increasingly involving observance of the heavens and sacred spheres of thought. During this experience, the more technology improves, the more I seek fundamental understanding.


Bagnall, R. (2002). Alexandria: Library of Dreams. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 146(4), 348-362. Retrieved from

Dutka, J. (1993). “Eratosthenes’ Measurement of the Earth Reconsidered” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 46(1), 55-66. Retrieved from

Fisher, R. (1982). Conon and the Poet : A Solution to “Eclogue”, III, 40-2. Latomus, 41(4), 803-814. Retrieved from

Heller-Roazen, D. (2002). Tradition’s Destruction: On the Library of Alexandria. October, 100, 133-153. Retrieved from

Trumble, K., & Marshall, R. M. (2003). The Library of Alexandria. New York, NY: Clarion Books.


Conceptualizing Worldview and Expressing the Biblical Worldview

Throughout history, various perspectives which could be called worldviews have been formed, and with the life of Jesus Christ, the Biblical worldview has as well thus this paper is seeking their delineation. Eugene Webb, Professor Emeritus in the University of Washington Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, asserts what he views as an essential part of humanity. Eugene Webb states, “No human being lives without a worldview, but comparatively few ever give much thought to what worldviews are, how they come into being, how they change, and how they are held” (Webb, 2009, Pg. 1). Another way of saying this is that all of humanity perseveres with a worldview. This essay is an inquiry into what the Greeks called οὐσία, which is translated to English as being or, as an adjective, factual in the state of the things as they are. Therefore, this is to deduce what a state of being is and what can be defined as any true Christian fact, if any. The process of analyzing these views is something which is a substantial effort and it is possible that all details fundamental to them may not be described in this essay which shall be addressed in the form of implications for the reader to apprehend through induction. Furthermore, the outcome of this essay is not to express what a conceptual worldview and the Biblical worldview should be, normative proposals, but rather to express what they are, descriptively. It is thus this writer’s contention that the concepts of worldview and the Biblical worldview can be bounded.

To understand a word, apprehending its etymological roots can be worthwhile. The research of James W. Underhill about the origin of the meaning of worldview shows insight. James W. Underhill says that the German word “Weltanschauung” (Underhill, 2009, Pg. 54) is associated with the idea of “’function[ing] as an idea of pure reason to bring the totality of human experience into the unity of the world-whole, or Weltganz’” (Underhill, 2009, Pg. 54). The converse of this is the totality of Weltganz, another German word, into the unity of the human experience. This writer asks if this is a sound relation with some skepticism. If it is, then it a functional idea about which the human experience and the world-whole and sets of values can be input to output information relevant about the entirety of existence. However, looking at the history of the world and its state of not knowing everything in existence, even that of human experience, it is clear to this writer that this term could be, at best, viewed as a conceptual ideal rather than the relationship between humanity and the world in fact or as de facto situation. Therefore, at the very least, worldview is not a relationship between human experience and a unified understanding of the world. Having stated this, it follows that the Christian worldview could be inquired about for the sake of understanding its characteristics.

At this point in this discussion, the word Christian in Christian worldview can be seen as a characteristic of worldview, being an adjective. However, this writer asks if this grammatical explanation is a sufficient one. To reflect, the apostle Paul states something worthwhile to the Romans. Paul says, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom 12: 2 King James Version). This writer holds the view that exegetically, this is to say that if there is a single Christian worldview it is thus not a characteristic of the world hence it forgoes that of attribution to worldview in its true form. Therefore, a more reasonable identification of this understanding should be described as the worldview of Christianity.

During Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, he writes about the natural state of Christ in the world. Paul states to the Corinthians, “And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now if you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it” (1 Cor 12: 26-27 King James Version). A view of this writer is to express that the humanity of Christianity is connected by Christ. Therefore, the worldview of Christianity is hierarchically subordinate to him as if Christ is the metaphorical roots of a tree or a mainframe system of a computer network. It follows that the prior identification of worldview as not that of a relation should be compared to the Christian worldview. Interestingly, all of humanity is linked with Jesus, collectively, and Jesus is linked with all of humanity by Paul’s assertion.

After contemplation, David Mathis states that Christ is the son of the unifier of the gospel. David Mathis states, “And, mark this, no one cares more for her unity of his church around her Savior, his own Son, than God himself.” (Piper, Mathis, Warren, 2011, Pg. 11). This is to say that the will of Christ is a characteristic of God, yet the Holy Spirit is a third person thus the Triune God would necessarily be a collective relationship with all of humanity. It cannot be humanity with Jesus and God, and the Holy Spirit, separately, and be a relation. Therefore, at the very least, a worldview without the collective of humanity considered as a single idea with a body of knowledge as the Christian worldview is not a relation. It follows that it cannot be functional. This is to say that while a worldview and the Christian worldview, so to speak, may be concepts that human recognize without a true form of apprehension, at least we may be aware of what these concepts are not.


Piper, J., Mathis, D., & Warren, R. (2011). Thinking, Loving, Doing. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. Pg. 11

The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2004). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Cor 12: 26-27.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2004). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Rom 12: 2.

Underhill, J. W. (2009). Humboldt, Worldview and Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pg. 54.

Webb, E. (2009). Worldview and Mind: Religious Thought and Psychological Development. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Pg. 1


Learning Languages – Native and Foreign

In 2013, about a year before I enrolled in a computer science program at a post-secondary school a couple years ago, I decided that I would begin learning more about languages. As a computer science major, I may give the impression that these languages are primarily for programming at a glance. Although I learned a few in academic and professional settings, and I continue my academic program, I am referring to spoken dialects such as English and Spanish. During 2013, I began studying Japanese. I learned the basics of hiragana and katakana. However, it was not until I began critically studying the Biblical Scriptures that I found a calling for language study through prayer and action. As a result, I think that I should learn languages for the purpose of collaborating with people from around the world. I understand that English is the language of international business and science, and understanding people in their native tongues may help when sharing ideas within diverse teams.

For a while, I was studying Japanese as mentioned, but I decided that I would learn from professionals or professional software applications. I started with MandarinX MX101: Chinese Language: Learn Basic Mandarin. A couple months into 2016, I completed that program. Here is the course certificate. When I completed that, I felt more equipped for a journey on the path towards understanding other people, more. My current involvement with Mandarin Chinese is Rosetta Stone. I am currently on the final segment of Level 1 with three levels remaining. Besides that, I am learning Spanish with Duolingo. I believe that I may work towards fluency in these languages, and with steady effort, my faith should be rewarded.

The Biblical Scriptures offer insights into the relevance of sharing languages with people. Moses, the traditionally accepted author of the Torah including Genesis, wrote, “The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them” (NIV, Gen 11:6). The LORD spoke of the capacity of mankind when speaking the same language. A possible interpretation of this is accepting that humanity has potential for good or evil with the godliness bestowed to us as those who have the image of God. Having said that, in our new covenant because of Christ’s self-sacrifice, mankind has the right to life together as the church of YHWH. Therefore, I hold the view that learning multiple languages for Christ empowers mankind so that we may build relationships based on holy purposes, and receive the blessings of God. This is instead of the alternative purpose of building on a foundation of haughtiness as Nimrod did.