WordWolf

If you're in a hurry, Bible Gateway's a good website to use. If you have a computer (you're not using someone else's) E-sword is a good program to have. It offers several Bible versions electronically, as well as commentaries, and that's just counting the free public domain stuff. Actually, I already explained it when I said "In the case of Romans 8:20-21, I disagree about who cursed the ground in Genesis 3. God announced the ground was cursed, and some people (like cg33r) have said that God cursed the ground at that time." Why does that matter? I already explained THAT when I said "I think that was inconsistent with the chapter. However, it's critical to the PARAPHRASE of these 2 verses in TLB. If he was as wildly inaccurate on that as I think he is, then there's no way to understand Romans 8:20-21 without closing the TLB and opening a different version." If your COMMENTARY is teaching ERROR, it's not effective, at least in the parts with the errors. If you hear the newscasters announce deaths from accidents at night, and then blame the newscasters for CAUSING the deaths from accidents, then it's consistent to blame God Almighty in Genesis 3 for cursing the ground. God announced the ground was cursed. Then other people come along, and read verses in Romans 8 where it mentions the ground having been cursed by someone, and they ADDED that it was GOD ALMIGHTY who cursed the ground. I find that's inconsistent with a careful read of Genesis 3. (If you need me to break it down, start a thread on it and I shall.) I haven't read more than this handful of TLB. Already I found something that I object to on grounds of being discernable error. What would I find if I made it through all of Romans, etc? Oh, and if you're wondering how I know "God" was inserted in the English when it was "he" in the Greek, you've forgotten I can read a Lexicon, and it doesn't take a large vocabulary to recognize the Greek letters in "Theos" and its cognates. If I don't "have my senses exercised to recognize good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14), then the biggest problem when opening my Bible isn't how long I prayed first. A devil would only learn of Scripture to subvert or misuse it, so OBVIOUSLY just that they're quoting the Bible isn't satisfactory. It's REALLY not the same thing as me quoting verses and expounding on them. OBVIOUSLY. I have nothing against recommending a prayerful attitude, humility towards God, prayers to Him for understanding, and diligence to hear from Him. However, equating a lack of it with a devil tempting Jesus in the wilderness is not necessary to make the point. The point was self-evident without digressions into speculative fiction.

I know Alec Baldwin said it, and I think it was an improvised line, but I never saw the movie.

Wild guess- "Frasier"?

Well, you're halfway there. I figured, since I'd heard of the old movie despite never seeing it, you guys would know it at least as well. It had a tv series in 1981 and another in 2009 as well as the movie, and the book they were all based on (I didn't know there was a book....) There were even radio dramas, which makes sense since the book was out in the 50s and the BBC does radio dramas even now, AFAIK, but that usually makes me think 1940s. Not a clue, just me musing. Someone's floating the idea of a 3D version for theaters now, so it's not like this is THE most obscure movie out there. I guarantee the linking word is NOT a type of animal (nor part of the name of a type of animal, that wasn't a trick.)

Serves me right for not jumping on "Blazing Saddles" when I had the chance. I know for next time.

Was that really his own hair?

In this classic (1963) sci-fi/monster movie, a weatherman keeps reliving the first 24 hours of the Earth's invasion by flesh-eating plants after a meteor shower brings them to Earth and blinds most of the humans.Stars Howard Keel, Carole Ann Ford, and Andie Mac Dowell.

I at least had an outside shot at it because an episode of "Married With Children" included the actor for Kookie, named him and his role, and included references to combs and "lend me your comb" in reference to him. So, it was not impossible to guess.

He asked if the lead female ROLE (the part the leading actress played) was a real or a fictitious person- was the role based on a real person (like in Mommy Dearest) or not (like in Lara Croft-Tomb Raider.)

I am VERY hesitant to spend time in PARAPHRASE Bibles. The Living Bible, like the Amplified Bible, is a paraphrase of what the texts say, and often the difference is dramatic. I noticed that especially here in Romans 8:20-21, where the meaning seemed to make a great leap away from the text. My concern is- I'm locking my understanding ENTIRELY into the understanding of whoever was in charge of the paraphrase. In the case of the TLB, that's better than the average schmoe who never reads a Bible, but frankly I feel he missed some things I don't miss. In the case of Romans 8:20-21, I disagree about who cursed the ground in Genesis 3. God announced the ground was cursed, and some people (like cg33r) have said that God cursed the ground at that time. I think that was inconsistent with the chapter. However, it's critical to the PARAPHRASE of these 2 verses in TLB. If he was as wildly inaccurate on that as I think he is, then there's no way to understand Romans 8:20-21 without closing the TLB and opening a different version. There's 3 types of Bible- word for word, concept for concept and paraphrases. Word for word Bibles try to make the most direct translation possible, and are the best for actual study. Concept for concept are a step further, and I avoid paraphrases whenever possible for that. Here's a link to a pdf that explains the relative strengths of some English versions: https://www.churchpublishing.org/media/custom/IN-Formation/NewBibleTranslations.pdf

I said the same thing. We know who wasn't in the movie, but we don't even have any minor actors who WERE in the movie.

I Corinthians 2:6-9 (NASB) 6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.” ===================================== Short explanation: What God Almighty has prepared for us in the future is mind-blowing and don't even try to figure all of it out. It's a surprise- for us and for everyone else. ====================================== Romans 8:16-25 (NASB) 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. =============================================== Short explanation: As a result of our identification in Christ, just as Christ was foretold to suffer and then be glorified later, and then suffered and was glorified later, we suffer now and will be glorified in the future. At the appointed time, just as Jesus was transformed and glorified, we'll be transformed and-at long last, like the end of labor pains, this current suffering will be over and our unveiled selves will be revealed. That is our Hope (part of it, at least.) That's as short and simple as I can make this concept and this passage. I had to include surrounding verses for context.

In this movie, a man keeps reliving the first 24 hours of the Earth's invasion by flesh-eating plants.

AFAIK, TECHNICALLY, that is correct. I am not aware of vpw using the words "I am a prophet". However, he worked very hard to INSINUATE it. In fact, if you go over all the definitions he used/made up of the "gift ministries", he phrased them so as to make them applicable to himself. -teacher He called himself "THE TEACHER" long before any of us ever heard of him, and continued that until his death. -evangelist He said an evangelist didn't go out and win souls. He said an evangelist inspired the flock and got them excited so that THEY would go out and win souls. How CONVENIENT. -pastor All his talk of "my people" convinced others that he cared like a shepherd cares for his flock, rather than how the farmer cares for the Thanksgiving turkey. -apostle The word means "sent one." He claimed it was "someone who brings 'new light' to his generation. It may be old light, but to his generation, it's 'new light.' " -prophet "One who speaks for God." vpw expected his every utterance to be treated like it came directly from God Almighty. He certainly expected to be treated as if he spoke for God. So, he claimed ONE of those titles openly- and that as the definitive one, THE Teacher, not A Teacher. Me, I think vpw wanted to call himself all 5, but was either too cowardly or too clever to make an open claim. So, he INSINUATED it and let the young and naive fill in the blanks. Sounds about right.

I'm young for this board, but that's relative. On another board, I'm really old by comparison. I definitely don't feel young chasing after my kid.

If it was aired in syndication during my lifetime, then I had a chance to see it. Otherwise, it would need to have been aired in SOME form during my lifetime. In this case, it DID air, but by the name I mentioned.

Small wonder I missed the question. It aired from 1967 to 1968. I was unable to watch television at that time, being nonexistent and all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superman/Aquaman_Hour_of_Adventure "Subsequently in 1968, the series became The Batman/Superman Hour, with new Superman/Superboy and Batman segments."

There's been a number of permutations across syndication. "The Superman/Batman Adventure Hour"??????

The other day I read some trivia about the comic book "THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD" and how that team-up comic would foreshadow the next guest. I'd be shocked if the cartoon of the comic was the correct answer. However, I have to get past that to think about this.

vpw was very experienced with "do as I say and not as I do", and a complete stranger at LEADING BY EXAMPLE. When it came to instructing, vpw took the easy way, the "I'll tell you what you should do", rather than the more instructive "I'll show you what you should do." Hypocrites in general are very good at the former, and very poor at the latter. "Quit smoking and give the money to twi", vpw told some of the corps, while continuing to support a smoking addiction. etc, etc.

I'm giving the others a few more hours just in case someone new wants to chime in...

You don't know any clues that would help? It's the only game show that a town was named after! If you're stuck, look up a show online. Either IMdB, Wikipedia, or both will have a page on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_or_Consequences Are you turning it over to George for a partial answer, posting another, or making it a Free Post?

"Coming Home Alone"???

"A Hard Day's Night"?

If I understand how we got to this thread, Ehrman read the account, and the "anothen doesn't mean 'again', it means 'from above'" thing, realized that was in Greek when this conversation would have been in an Aramaic dialect (or whatever language he thought but not Greek), and concluded that the misunderstanding of Nicodemus was due to misunderstanding a word that had more than one meaning. Taking that as a conclusion and a given, he further concluded that the conversation could not have happened, since the confusion would have been dependent upon it being written in Greek, which would have meant the conversation couldn't have pre-dated Greek versions of the Gospels, which would mean the account wasn't in any original, which would mean it was made-up. The original poster read that, and wanted to know what we thought about all that, presumably, specifically if we thought he was correct or incorrect, and why in either case. My response was to show that the original conclusion was premature, and that there's a much simpler explanation than Ehrman thought, and that it wasn't dependent upon any definitions of words. Maybe during the week, I'll go grab my books again and check if "anothen" should be translated "again" AT ALL- my thinking until now was that it never should have been and should have been "from above" all along. IIRC, I studied that out in 1989 and came to that conclusion.