Miscellaneous desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 11

Largest bank notes?

Do we have a list somewhere of the most valuable bank notes (in exchange rate equivalent terms) that are in wide circulation (e.g. something you can get at a typical bank and spend at a typical store)? Recently I saw someone use a 1000 CHF note (≈ $1000) to buy 28 CHF of groceries. Someone suggested to me that the 1000 CHF note might be the most valuable note in wide circulation. (The US only generally uses a $100 bill these days and the euro tops out at €500.) Does any country broadly distribute bank notes worth more than 1000 CHF? Dragons flight (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one reason we don't have such large bank notes is that they could be used to smuggle large sums of cash. With that in mind, a nation where the government, or the people who control the government, themselves engage in smuggling of cash might be a good place to look. Try kleptocracy for a list of some corrupt governments. Of course, some such governments may think that such large bank notes make their theft too obvious, or might not like that people whose money they try to steal can also hide it more easily. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have just done the easy thing and searched for "large denomination banknotes"; I discovered a site claiming Singapore has a SGD10,000 note - that's about USD7000. Brunei has one also -- they're interchangable. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Singapore dollar#The latest (portrait) series and Brunei dollar#2004–2007 (polymer) series say with sources that their $10,000 notes are the most valuable notes in circulation with the CHF1000 the next most, and that the notes are being phased out. (And as one of the articles notes, this reduction in high value circulating currencies is something that's a trend world wide.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Singapore dollar shows the 10,000 dollar note, and describes it as the highest value note in circulation (with the Swiss 1,000 franc note as the second largest). It also mentions that the note is now being withdrawn, though it remains legal currency. The Brunei dollar is tied to the Singapore dollar, and has the same value notes. Wymspen (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] 4-year-old story reports that 12 years after they started to be withdrawn, there were still nearly 950,000 Canadian $1000 bills out there somewhere... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bible marriage question

Does 1 Tim 3:2 refer to remarriage or polygamy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.233.119 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are multiple translations of that Bible verse, to get us started. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If there are "n" christians in the world, there are a minimum of "n+1" interpretations of any one passage from the Bible. That having been said, this Google Search offers MANY different interpretations of it. I'll avoid linking any one of them as I don't want to endorse any interpretation as better than another; but you're quite allowed to look through them yourself and reach your own conclusions. --Jayron 32 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt at teaching" obviously rules out polygamy, while saying nothing explicitly about remarriage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the above response has provided no links to any reliable sources. If you wish to find out what reliable and respected biblical commentators say, seek them out instead of believing what people here say. --Jayron 32 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the KJV quote, the first one listed in Carbon's link.[2] Unless you consider that link unreliable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your quote. It was everything that came after it. You provided your personal interpretation. This is not the "what I think is obvious" desk. This is the reference desk. If you wish to be useful to others, provide references. --Jayron 32 02:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, I need a link to polygamy to support that "the husband of one wife" rules out polygamy??? And where does the quote say anything about remarriage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The debate amongst bible scholars is what qualifies as "polygamy", or more directly, what wives might exist other than the "one wife". Is this an explicit prohibition of elder's being polygamists, or do ex-wives count as wives? Do mistresses count as wives? Do mere objects of lustful thought count as wives? People are still debating this. What you personally think "one wife" obviously means now may not be how this was interpreted 2000 years ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, polygamy means more than one spouse. The OP didn't ask about some blurry definition of what the word "wife" supposedly meant 2000 years ago vs. now. He asked about polygamy. Does the word "polygamy" appear in the Bible? Is there anything in the New Testament that authorizes polygamy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the meaning of the word polygamy. The issue is interpreting the scope of a bible passage based on your own understanding. When you become a notable theologian, and publish reliable sources on the meaning of bible passages, you can cite links to your own works. Unless and until that happens, please limit your "help" here to linking to the works of others. --Jayron 32 02:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long list of translations in that initial link, and every one of them indicates one wife or one woman. There is no room for polygamy there whatsoever. I may not be a theologian by trade, but I can read. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that words and definitions change over time, correct? At the time the bible was first put to parchment, the word "polygamy" did not exist in the Greek language. The closest ancient Greek word would have been "πολυγαμία" (married many times), which is ambiguous as to whether those marriages were consecutive or concurrent. Most people would probably agree that polygamy as the word is used today would be prohibited by the relevant passage as translated in the KJV, as read my modern English speakers. But amongst theologians, there is still debate over what that passage was actually meant to prohibit. There is no passage in the New Testament that is universally interpreted as a prohibition of polygamy, though there are a few that are pointed to as vague prohibitions of it, and of course some Mormons have their own theories: Polygamy in Christianity. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were confused by the straightforwardness of that passage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what you see as "straightforward" is caused by wearing cultural blinders. Remarriage by widowed people was a quite contentious question in early and medieval churches. And "the husband of one wife" can very well be interpreted as "the husband of one wife ever", not just "the husband of one living wife at a time". See e.g. this source, which discusses the remarriage of widowers in general and the remarriage of candidates for offices in the church in the second and third century. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what time frame did the Catholic Church approve of polygamy as we define it today? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Catholic Church suddenly come into it? The First Epistle to Timothy was probably composed at the turn from the first to the second century (traditionalist may date it even earlier), i.e. more than two centuries before either the Nicene Creed or a reasonably modern Bible canon, and more than nine centuries before the Great Schism. Anyways, I think we are talking at cross purposes. Not only did most Christian churches not only not approve polygamy, many didn't even approve of sequential marriages, not even if the old marriage was ended by the death of the spouse. This was, in particular, a not uncommon view in the second century, not too far from the time Timothy was composed. Thus the original question has no simple answer - several interpretations are consistent with Christian beliefs. Timothy may only refer to polygamy, it may refer to remarriage of widowed (or even divorced - divorce was standard practice in Roman culture at the time of Timothy) people, or it may even refer to just remarriage (with the implicit assumption that actual polygamy is not even on the table). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That rules out polygamy for bishops. That's "sky is blue" clear enough. Whether or not it means that bishops must be married, whether or not it prohibits serial monogamy, and whether or not the prohibition against polygamy is applicable to anyone who is not a bishop is interpretation, as is any context for this prohibition. E.g. is this an eternal moral prohibition or a temporal practical/social one? (Most mainstream theologians would agree that Paul uses both).^{[citation needed]} Does this apply only to Gentile churches, or does this add additional obligations to bishops who otherwise follow Jewish law? Etc... Those examples of whichever way interpretation could go are not meant to be conversation starters but to illustrate areas where we should not pretend to be authorities (on this site) on per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the first 20 pages of search results from the link above, and I found no link to jw.org. Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about 1 Timothy 3:2 at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002912?q=1+Timothy+3%3A2&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key to understanding this is to research the marriage customs of the societies within which the early church was living, rather than to focus on the New Testament text. I went though all this for a master's degree - but 30 years ago, so my references would be rather out of date now. Greeks and Romans were pretty licentious - but did not practice polygamy. Jews allowed it in certain circumstances, but it was uncommon by the first century. The New Testament says little about polygamy (as we understand the word) simply because that was not the moral issue they encountered in the pagan society around them. The basic message sent to the churches was that they should live to the highest possible moral standard when compared to the pagan society around them. Trying to work out what that meant in the first century is interesting, but irrelevant to understanding what it means in the twenty-first century. Wymspen (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now, here's a reference: THE MEANING OF “THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE” IN 1 TIMOTHY 3:2, which says that there are "...eight main interpretations of the phrase 'husband of one wife' found in 1 Timothy 3:2". Note that this is written from an Evangelical Protestant viewpoint. The author does at least cover all the bases, but tells you in no uncertain terms which ones he thinks is right. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If you love your Bible so much, why don't you marry it, Flanders ? Really, for $20 I'll perform the ceremony." - Homer Simpson - StuRat (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The phrase also appears in Titus 1 v 6, commentary here:[3]. A previous post linked to an analysis of the original Greek text:

Interestingly, this shows up the fallacy of the Roman Catholic doctrine of celibacy. Here's official Catholic teaching on the matter: [4], [5]. The views of different denominations are contrasted here [6] while this piece [7] discusses the original Greek text. - 79.77.28.185 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original is ambiguous, so I would think we will have to accept that we can only guess what this passage means when it is translated into English. This ambiguity is not specific to English and Greek - in Portuguese the word mulher can mean either "wife" or "woman" (although the corresponding word marido ("husband") is not ambiguous). The Portuguese version is marido de uma mulher. This word mulher is translated as "woman" in Ephesians 5 vv 22 - 33 and 1 Corinthians 11 vv 3 - 15, however in verse 3 an alternative reading to "the head of the woman is man" is given as "the head of the wife is her husband". The plural form mulheres appears in Titus 2 v 4, translated as "women". 1 Peter 3 v 7 uses a word I have not come across before:

De mesmo modo vós, maridos, cohabitae com ellas segundo a sciencia, tratando-as com honra, como a vaso mulheril mais fraco ...

.

The rationale for the passage in 1 Corinthians, which deals with wearing hats in church, is contained in verse 7:

O varão, na verdade, não deve cobrir a sua cabeça, porque é a imagem e gloria de Deus, mas a mulher é a gloria do varão.

(The man, in truth, must not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man). 86.174.79.39 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]