WordWolf

Considering the history of vpw's group, its "scraping by" years exceeded its successful years. He started, IIRC, in 1941. In 1942 AND 1943 (I may be off and it was 1941 and 1942), vpw claims he considered giving up. If he told the truth, he certainly didn't have much endurance to "run the race." Imagine if anyone else went to HIM talking about quitting, what a failure he'd make them out to be, especially the SECOND time. He claimed to have heard from God Almighty in 1942, and STILL nothing took off. He continued for several years in the denomination, while doing side-projects for over a decade, with a radio show, editing the work of Bible teachers, and so on. A few years after he was able to deed the family farm to HIS ministry, (time to do work around it), he went out on his own, and complained that he wasn't getting enough tithes to do the job. Even after stealing Leonard's class and Stiles' book, he had lukewarm results. If he hadn't hijacked the hippies around 1969-1970, he would have vanished into history, another would-be "giant" of history nobody's ever heard of. So, 1941-1969 is 28 years of lukewarm results and skating by. 1969-1982 is 13 years of success- built on the backs of others whom he deceived, and those years ended with him bitter and neglected just as he'd neglected so many others down the decades.

The names are slowly getting better-known, and will get obvious soon enough.

"What part of Georgia you from? South Central?" "Oh good, they've opened the salad bar." "I should have never worn these shoes. They just don't match my purse." "I've been in here for a while. Perhaps I could be of service. Do you have any questions?" "What are you in for?" "Jaywalking." "Are you with me? Yea or Nay?" "Well which one means yes?" "Yea." " I hope's it worth the NOISE! " "Did you just say 'Abe Lincoln'?"

George Prager Ostap Bender Harry Crystal Akmed Khazzan Harold Canterbury James Tiernan Thomas De La Plata Leland Carver Jeffrey Roston Bob Alexander Noah Banes Vic Grimes "Wild Bill" Burgess Perry Needham Krohn Boris Balkan Robert Denright Blaine De Castillon Edgar Price Godfrey Winters William Paley Ned Bears Leonard Schiller Louis Zabel Sanford Marks Warner Dax Warren Burger Anthony Molina Sam Bloom Francis Tucker Tim Geer

Genesis 4:20-22 (NASB) 0 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. ====================================================== -Jabal was "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock." -Jubal was "the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe." Let's be sensible. Was this TRYING to say "all nomadic herders everywhere are the direct descendants of Jabal"? Was this TRYING to say "all musicians everywhere are the direct descendants of Jubal?" If so, what about nomadic herders who play the pipe? We know THEY existed (and probably exist to this day.) This was saying that these men were the forerunners of those people, the pioneers of those people who did those things. ====================================================== There's this tap-dance that was introduced to make Jesus' comments supposedly claim that Adam was "the serpent." The alleged reasoning went thusly: "Speaking to the apostate Jews of His day, Jesus said, “Ye serpents…" "Ye are of your father the devil" and that there must have been some sort of genetic basis for saying he was their father. So, the "father" part had to be literally a genetic bloodline and could not be figurative nor symbolic, while the "serpent" part had to be figurative and symbolic and could not be literal. ============================ In both the early chapters of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible, "father" often is symbolic and not referring to a genetic sire. But this writer seems to have missed that- and without "father" being REQUIRED to be genetic, his entire basis for bringing in the Gospels falls down because it does not support his case (if anything, it undermined his case.) This is not difficult to see, with a plain reading of the text. There is no need for an esoteric or a "mystery" version of the text.

Of course, this is an actor you've heard of, and not some "Who? Who? Who?" person who played extras for his entire career. Hopefully, the answer will come to you soon. ( None of that was any type of clue.)

He asked if "the devil" literally appeared as a carnivorous, limbless reptile in The Garden.

Everything would have changed. He BRIEFLY (in the 1950s) talked about Ecumenical movements- he would have continued as ecumenical, giving Leonard and Stiles due credit, and claiming an eclectic group that did their best to incorporate the best of what each Christian ministry offered. If he reached out the the hippies, it would have been a joint effort and even-handed, and the results would still be felt to this day rather than having choked the vitality out of a nascent Christian movement.

"What part of Georgia you from? South Central?" "Oh good, they've opened the salad bar." "I should have never worn these shoes. They just don't match my purse." "I've been in here for a while. Perhaps I could be of service. Do you have any questions?" "What are you in for?" "Jaywalking." "Are you with me? Yea or Nay?" "Well which one means yes?" "Yea." " I hope's it worth the NOISE! "

George Prager Ostap Bender Harry Crystal Akmed Khazzan Harold Canterbury James Tiernan Thomas De La Plata Leland Carver Jeffrey Roston Bob Alexander Noah Banes Vic Grimes "Wild Bill" Burgess Perry Needham Krohn Boris Balkan Robert Denright Blaine De Castillon Edgar Price

Which means this is George's turn.

"What part of Georgia you from? South Central?" "Oh good, they've opened the salad bar." "I should have never worn these shoes. They just don't match my purse." "I've been in here for a while. Perhaps I could be of service. Do you have any questions?" "What are you in for?" "Jaywalking."

George Prager Ostap Bender Harry Crystal Akmed Khazzan Harold Canterbury James Tiernan Thomas De La Plata Leland Carver Jeffrey Roston Bob Alexander Noah Banes Vic Grimes

I like Yes, but I really don't know a lot of their songs well, at least to name the lyrics. Going to post another song?

Next movie, then. "What part of Georgia you from? South Central?"

Either way, we agree the point was "to convey concepts in terms humankind could understand." The disagreement on the table is what one of those concepts was. In this case, I think we have an example of someone who came up with an esoteric theory so that he could consider himself remarkably clever, as he came up with something the rest of us didn't find. ("They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Edison, they laughed at me..." "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, Topo Gigio, and Señor Wences. Sit down, sparky.") Someone with more time on their hands might compare that to "and your eyes shall be opened" and other quotes from Genesis 3. It's not without irony.

As a point of reference, I hope we can all agree that the text is relatively straightforward on who Eve's husband was. (NASB unless otherwise specified) Genesis 2: 21ff 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. =========================================== Genesis 3:20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. =============================================== This seems pretty straightforward. Adam and Eve are man and woman, and husband and wife- at least concerning Genesis 2 and 3. ============================================== 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” ============================================ We don't have much to go on here, but we can see who "the serpent" is NOT based on a clear reading of Genesis 3. He is NOT God Almighty, he is NOT Adam, and he is NOT Eve. We know he is NOT Eve because he argues with Eve and convinces her to disobey God. We know he is NOT God because he counsels her to do exactly the OPPOSITE that God counsels her to do. ("You SHALL surely die" vs "You shall NOT surely die" is pretty clearly an opposed direction.) We know he is NOT Adam because the blame for the incidents rolls downhill, and Adam, Eve AND serpent are each punished as a consequence of what DID happen. =========================================== 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. ============================================== If it had been that Adam had been the one counseling her, things would have been different. He would have argued from their connection, and HE would have given HER to join HIM, using peer pressure to induce spousal conformity (by doing it, she was staying with him since he was doing it, and not going away from her husband.) Instead, we see her taking action, and then getting HIM to join HER. There is no textual connection to suggest that Adam and serpent are one person. In fact, the only thing that can be used to suggest that is the thinness of detail concerning "the serpent." That is, we have questions as to who he is, what he is, why he is there, and what he is doing. So, someone who has a pet theory can discard what it DOES say and decide to read into what it says, and ignore what it DOES say to advance a pet theory. But, "the serpent" is treated as a separate being by God, when consequences are handed out, and there's nothing unclear about that. Adam is confronted, he blames Eve (and God for giving him Eve), and Eve blames "the serpent". (Interestingly, God never asks "the serpent" why he did what he did, which could be a different discussion.) ==================================== 3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 T =============================== Again, pretty clear. Everybody blamed someone else, and Adam said Eve talked him into it- and Eve said nothing about being talked into it by "her husband" or "the man" or "Adam" or anything that would clearly point to Adam as being the one who convinced her. =============================== 14 The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” ============================== Looks like there were 3 beings held responsible, and 3 beings punished. "'The serpent" was punished, then Eve was punished, then Adam was punished. "The serpent" was made in enmity of "the woman", while Adam was still her husband as declared in Genesis 2. In fact, at the end of both Genesis 2 and 3, we get different perspectives on them being sent out together. I imagine someone can concoct a lengthy idea of spouses "hating" each other and being sentenced to stay married to each other, but let's be honest about how far one has to read into what's there for that. Now, for those people wanting to discuss my exact wording and saying that I said that God punished all of them, I'd like to point out that the short read points in the same direction either way- 3 beings being punished, God outlining the punishments, and 3 punishments being levied. Whether or not God is administering them is really not the issue there- and the text supports either position there. As for saying "the serpent" was UNQUESTIONABLY a literal animal, I'd say there was a lot to question that. We have a being that can carry on convincing arguments and outsmart a human in a debate. At the end of it, he's not robbed of his ability to do any of that. So, this was a being who could do that before, AND still do that after. If we want to speak LITERALLY- as a modern reader- we would say this was obviously NOT meant to be an animal, since he spoke as one smarter than them, and retained the ability to do so. Not a human, but not an animal. The first 3 chapters do NOT make it clear EXACTLY who he is, nor what he IS (we know what he is NOT.) All right, why, then, do we get the references to things sounding like an actual snake? It's an extended metaphor. We do that nowadays with our figures of speech, and few people would argue this is not to be done. ("Senator Bedfellow, let me read you from our biography of you." "No, you're out to get me." "Senator, that's not true. The press is your friend." "Oh, all right then, read an excerpt to me over the phone." "Sure thing. 'Leaving a trail of slime whereve...' *phone disconnects as the Senator hangs up*" ) People liken someone to an animal in an unflattering way, then continue the figure when speaking of that person. We do that nowadays. (I do that here, in fact, but not in an unflattering way.) It's considered fine when we do it, and I've never been corrected when I've done it here. However, we suppose that they never did it a long, long time ago. They had language, so it should not be a shocker that they could have figurative speech. We have a "serpent" who will be cursed beyond any cattle or domestic animal, forced to "go on his belly" (humiliated), and made to "eat dust" (eating dirt is humiliating). One who insists this is a literal serpent may ask why it says he will be forced to eat "dust" when ancient people knew what animals ate, so they knew that serpents didn't literally eat dust- they are carnivores. (They didn't need to learn that in school- they learned that through simple observation.) So, either they were told to believe something they knew was factually untrue, or a point was being made figuratively. Me, I think a point was being made figuratively. Yes, I think it's possible to misunderstand that, but there is probably little in print that is not open to misunderstanding, especially for someone determined to read into it. Genesis 1-3 is not an exception to this. Some other time, I'll get back to this "father means" business.

Ok. Name the actor. George Prager Ostap Bender Harry Crystal Akmed Khazzan Harold Canterbury James Tiernan

Mystery Men Paul Reubens Batman Returns

I'm just not hearing anything, and I'm not picturing any more lyrics with this, sorry.

I can't find the post now, but it said one staffer (GreasyTech) fixed things. So, big thanks to GreasyTech, and thanks to the staff in general!

*applauds* You've got it in one! Alan Reed, George Peppard, Buddy Ebsen, Patricia Neal and Mickey Rooney were all in that, and played those other roles. Deep Blue Something had a hit with the song "Breakfast at Tiffany's." Your turn.

My opening remarks are going to be fairly brief (for me), and address the general framework and mindset differences. For any of a number of reasons, the Book of Genesis was written to be clear and easy-to-be-understood by the people at the time it was penned. If the "creation account" and "the fall" of Genesis 1-3 were written for modern sensibilities, it would have been written (for the same number of reasons) with some highly technical details, it would have been far more exhaustive in detail, and would have proceeded in a far more linear fashion. One common mistake, IMHO, in reading Genesis is in refusing to approach it like it was "meant" to be read, that is, with a literary mindset that matches the text and not 21st century books. (The differences between early 20th century books and now can be dramatic- so the idea that, further back, there's GREATER differences, should not be particularly odd. One additional problem, which this writer didn't make, is when people assume that we invented figures of speech or extended figures of speech. We have no difficulty understanding them when they're used in modern settings, but when it comes to old settings, some people seem to think they didn't exist. Example 1: Christopher Lee sang "The Bloody Verdict of Verden." It dramatizes an incident from Charlemagne's life, where thousands of Saxons were killed at Charlemagne's order. Lee plays Charlemagne in the song. "I shed the Blood of the Saxon men! I shed it at Verden! I shed the Blood of the Saxon men! I shed the Blood of four thousand Saxon men!" Nobody takes him to mean that Charlemagne himself stood there at Verden and slew all 4000 personally. Example 2: We have no difficulty imagining the use of animals to METAPHORICALLY describe people now. "The old sidewinder", "that pig", "you cow", and so on. When we do so, we're comparing some attribute of the person (real or imagined) to the animal's attributes (real or imagined). We have no problem with an extended metaphor comparing one to the other, and understand we're not speaking, say, of a literal fox, or a literal wolf, or whatever. Anyway, I haven't connected any of this to the topic yet, but I plan to, if anyone cares. Peace and love.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock Bands include Yes, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Procul Harum and the Moody Blues, among others.

If it's Alice Cooper and not Marilyn Manson (Alice Cooper ripoff), then I don't know what show he was compared to. I'll stand by for more clues.