FogBat

Well, this had to be embarrassing, given the parties involved. I have to wonder if that pair is real. Then again, maybe it's something that the Finnish President's husband should set his sights on. ;)

:thumbsup: I'm glad to read that from you.

Well, that was interesting with regard to The Stig. As for the KJV, it was definitely written in a form of English that was used back in those days. Obviously, most people don't talk nor write like that today (unless they like to use that kind of inflection to get their own point across).

My goodness. This entire podcast rocked! I really can't get it out of my head.

1, that's a very interesting take on how you put the totality of Scripture in hockey layman's terms. As an aside, I read this a number of years ago to where someone could not attribute a certain quote about the OT and the NT, but I wound up finding it recently. Some people say that this is attributed to Augustine, but I know that Matthew Henry pretty much said it. "The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New explained." IOW, they obviously tie together. 2, I like Pat. I may not agree with his theology, but I have a deep appreciation for his love of this country. He's not your typical talking head like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or even Alan Colmes. He thinks outside of the "Left/Right" box, which is something that I can appreciate because of how much I've been trying to unlearn from that propaganda machine.

:)

You could go out and buy them. Then again, you could also look here or here. There are a number of websites that have the Bible online and in various versions and languages. Plus, many of the Bibles that are being sold here in the US contain a lot of commentary notes, which can be a bit of a distraction for me when I'm just trying to read the text itself.

Here's the Rotten Tomatoes link for Goon.

I guess it's a good thing he doesn't have a set of "moobs" on him.

I'm liking what I'm seeing so far in this thread in terms of diverse reading material. I think this is one of those threads that is going to have staying power and that people are going to continue to post on here from time to time just like the Songs You Can't Get Out of Your Head thread. Kudos to d4rksabre for starting this!

Excellent question! A part of the issue (I wouldn't say it's a "problem") is that languages change over time. Case in point: look at how many different words have come into the English language just in the past 30 years alone - and the fact that English is one of the most spoken languages in the world. This is something that Bible translators have to take into consideration. We don't speak the same form of English as the Brits, or even the Australians and Nigerians. The world is a far different place than it was when the King James Version was published 401 years ago. Add to that the fact that the British Empire helped to spread the English language to all the different parts of the world since that time. Thus, while there were not as many translations published between the Wycliffe Bible (which introduced the Bible into English) and the King James Version, there has been an "explosion" in English translations ever since 1881. I cannot begin to tell you how much work and effort goes into Bible translations. Translation committees need men who have a thorough knowledge (and I do mean thorough knowledge of the original languages of Hebrew and Koine Greek - since the Greek that is spoken today is not the same Greek as it was written about 2000 years ago.) At the same time, given the amount of material that has been written through various notes and commentaries that have been passed down through the centuries has been a tremendous help to these translation committees. Nevertheless, even as they continue to work on translations, some archaeological discovery keeps being made that further validates the authenticity of the Scriptures. (The Dead Sea Scrolls are an excellent case in point.) My personal preferences for Bible translations are the 1599 Geneva Bible, the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). Just about all of these follow the word-for-word format, as opposed to the thought-for-thought method. I'm going to provide a link to something that shows not only the format, but also the projected readability of each of these versions that are on the list. As an aside, I actually find the Geneva Bible to be easier to read than the King James Version. Word to the wise: stay away from The Living Bible and The Message. Both of these are paraphrased "Bibles", which means that they were written in purely idiomatic form and did not have legitimate translation nor scholarship put into them. Plus, both of them were written by one man (Kenneth Taylor and Eugene Peterson, in that order). I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, feel free to hit up either me or Eric in Akron.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but that makes sense. Perhaps those men ought to pay a visit to One SHK III Plaza to instill in them some confidence and discipline.

In case some of you don't know what he means by PBUH, he's saying "Peace Be Upon Him". I am curious about one thing: Did Muhammad have proof that the Scriptures of the Bible were intentionally distorted? If so, how did he come across that? I know that it could be said that this was revealed to him, but did he actually sit down and do the actual scholarship to show this? (As an aside, IIRC, this is exactly the same accusation that Joseph Smith, Jr. leveled against the Bible when he was in the process of writing The Book of Mormon, and I have not seen any evidence that Smith possessed the "ivory tower scholar" superior scholastic abilities of someone like Daniel Wallace, RC Sproul, or even Augustine.)

One day, as my wife and I were driving along, we were joking about that certain part of the female anatomy. She called me the "T*tty Monster". I ran with that and did my best Cookie Monster impersonation: "T is for t*tty, and t*tty is for me."

I really like your economics selections. Granted, I have never read them, but I am familiar with what Hayek and Rothbard advocated. What's sad is that their Austrian economics ideas have been practically ignored by the Keynesian elites these days, and it's no wonder we don't have a sound money system. As an aside, what's really neat is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute created an award that bears Rothbard's namesake, and one of the people who received this reward was none other than Gary North (who, while largely ignored by the MSM, talks waaaaaaay more sense in one paragraph than any of the Keynesians over at CNBC and the Wall Street Journal in an entire edition). There's more than meets the eye. From Wikipedia: The first person to divide New Testament chapters into verses was Italian Dominican biblical scholar Santi Pagnini (1470–1541), but his system was never widely adopted.[3] Robert Estienne created an alternate numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament [4] which was also used in his 1553 publication of the Bible in French. Estienne's system of division was widely adopted, and it is this system which is found in almost all modern bibles. The first English New Testament to use the verse divisions was a 1557 translation by William Whittingham (c. 1524-1579). The first Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible published shortly afterwards in 1560. These verse divisions soon gained acceptance as a standard way to notate verses, and have since been used in nearly all English Bibles and the vast majority of those in other languages. As for Matthew of Aquasparta's Wikipedia entry, I found nothing saying that he began the whole chapter and verse division of organization.

Unless I'm mistaken, the setup between Scripture and the Qu'ran is completely different. Granted, the whole idea of inserting chapters and verses in Scripture was something that was done during the period of the Protestant Reformation. However, IIRC, Suras were set up from the get go. I just don't know when the separating ayat were done. (I had to read the Qu'ran for a seminary class on Introduction to Islam.) d4rk, I will get to answering your question hopefully within the next day or two. However, Eric in Akron has definitely given you some very helpful tools.

Have you ever read Rogue Warrior by Richard Marcinko? Aside from the fact that he goes above and beyond to living up to the idiom "swearing like a sailor", this is probably the best book he ever wrote. His other non-fiction pieces aren't so bad, but his fiction work removes all doubt that he's very big on himself. With the way my mind works, I can't stay on a single book and read it through without touching another one. I have to have several of them going at the same time. Thus, here's what I'm working on: John Calvin, Tracts and Letters (all 7 volumes) The Heather Hills of Stonewycke by Michael Phillips and Judith Pella (I bought this book back in 1990 and I'm finally starting to read it. I'm such a horrible procrastinator.) Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy (This one's going to have to require some patience on my part.) The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham The Mortification of Sin by John Owen (which was abridged and made easy to read by a contemporary editor. Dr. Owen's writings can be very difficult to digest because of the thoroughness by which he expounded upon his material.) The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith by Peter Hitchens (Christopher's younger brother) I had to read that for an English class at RIT. I really did not enjoy that book at all. If you have the patience to sift through all the various opinions on that subject matter, I commend you. The more I learn, the more I take what the political talking heads say with a grain of salt. Everyone here knows that I don't have much patience for the Left. At the same time, I have grown weary and cynical of the neocons and those who say they're on the Right but display everything except that. I have Kindle on my laptop. I told my wife that I didn't want the Kindle device itself because that would mean spending more money. Having said that, you can get some of the great literary classics for free on Kindle and download them. You can't go wrong there.

1, very interesting take. One of my friends told me that his four main food groups were sugar, salt, fat, and caffeine. Not too far from your estimation. 2, :sick: Man, that does not sound healthy at all. I'd rather be the kid's mom who sent her child to school with a turkey sandwich in North Carolina earlier this week. I guess the food police look the other way when it comes to consuming that kind of liquid trash. Talk about a complete lack of introspection and being in a perpetual state of out to lunch. It's been a pretty mild winter all around. Last winter, I took a load through southwest Missouri and it was -2 at 7 in the morning. Last week, I went through the KC area and it was in the mid 30's. I agree with LastPommerFan. At least coffee is ahelluva lot more natural than the liquid sh!t SDS was talking about.

:lol: (Not laughing at SDS specifically, but that was a rather funny question to ask)

IDK how that's head on. IDK if the Snooze reported on this or not, so I have no idea. Looks like one was either not paying attention or was just too impatient to get through the cashbox, so he thought he'd ram it through. I can either see Bill Engvall saying, "Here's Your Sign" or Ron White saying, "You can't fix stupid."

It could be worse. There's a pic that went viral of two cars that went through the same toll barrier on the 190 a while back. What were they thinking?

This is one of the strangest bands I've ever heard of. I can't wait to hear a Tipper Gore response. :D

There's a name I haven't heard in a long time. How about Jennifer Connelly?

That was a really incredible preview. I'd love to see it, but I don't think my wife could put up with all of the F-bombs. As for Slap Shot, unless I missed something along the way, I'm glad that all the talk of remaking that cult classic never came to fruition. There are some movies that might be worth remaking for today's audiences. But when it comes to Slap Shot, you don't remake a movie like that. Ever.

fixed