WordWolf

Yes, he did. And it led to the Land of Make-Believe. The current cartoon "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood" follows Daniel Tiger onto the trolley as he goes to school and learns life lessons, complete with variations on the opening and closing songs used by Fred Rogers. My favorite legend of Mr Rogers is that someone stole his car, and that, when the thief saw the announcement on the news, he returned the car and apologized. Nice story. I was shocked to see Ming-Wa Nen was on his show playing a role. She's on "Marvels Agents of SHIELD" as Agent May. Bob Keeshan, of course, was playing Captain Kangaroo and not himself when he visited. I like that his closing song (that replaced "Tomorrow" changed the line "I'll be back when the day is new" to "I'll be back when the week is new" for Friday episodes. Some kids DO notice those things. (Mrs Wolf has watched Daniel Tiger's show, and recognized the trolley and the reference to "snappy" in the song confirmed for her that this was the original show I was mentioning.) So, your turn.

I can see that, although assigning even indirect responsibility for that to God Almighty is something I wouldn't do other than to say the alternative was that He could (or should) have made humans with stunted free will so sin wasn't an option. Technically, He bears that indirect responsibility. Of course it's not necessary. It's also nothing like what I said. (Strawman.) A) "Because of one or two incorrect scriptures." I know of one just from the little snippet you posted. If I had a lot more time, I'm sure I'd find a LOT more, if only because, statistically, to have just hit the ONE place with ONE error in an entire Bible with only ONE sample to draw from is like winning the Powerball lottery after ever only buying one ticket. B) Who said anything about throwing out an entire version of the Bible? I said I don't use paraphrases, and why I don't. (And frankly, you demonstrated my point about their inherent weakness in the one snippet you quoted.) (Strawman.) When I'm reading a commentary, I like to know when I'm reading a commentary. When I'm reading what's supposed to be unadorned verses, I like to know that. They are good for different things and should be read with different approaches. I recommended E-Sword on this thread and mentioned it had commentaries for it that could be integrated for free, so it's obvious I don't have problems with commentaries or with using them. I have problems with mislabeling a commentary as something else. It leads people to conclusions they would not have if they were told the truth. The book "Roots" by Alex Haley was a work of fiction with no real research nor historical accuracy to it. Yet, people were told it was accurate historically, as in "things happened like this." So, a lot of people finished the book and thought they knew HISTORICALLY how things happened that didn't happen that way. I object to that. If they'd been told "this is historical fiction and is not based on research" (like, say, the movie "A Knight's Tale", inspired by Chaucer's fictional "Knight's Tale), then I have no problem with people reading it because they should expect- fairly- entertainment but not historical education. So, a commentary should be labeled exactly that, so it can be used for its proper purposes and for nothing else. What's so objectionable about that? That makes them commentaries. In many cases, that makes them laudable and noteworthy commentaries, and quite useful. How would you feel if a friend offered to drive you to the airport in his "car", and when he showed up, he was riding a bicycle, and said he considered that his "car" since it's how he got around, and he considered it superior to using the "other type of car" because it's environmentally friendly? I don't know, Mark. I'm not feeling like this is the same "Mark" I've corresponded with here over the years. I feel like "he" would have gotten my points immediately and not objected to things I didn't say and then blame me for saying them. I find this peculiar.

This long-running show had guests appear occasionally. They included Lou Ferrigno, Yo-Yo Ma, Bill Nye, Bob Keeshan, Margaret Hamilton, Michael Keaton, Bill Bixby, Ming-Na Wen, Wynton Marsalis, Marcel Marceau, Tony Bennett, Rita Moreno, Branford Marsalis, Itzhak Perlman, David Copperfield, LeVar Burton. (In fairness, Bob Keeshan, Michael Keaton, Margaret Hamilton and Ming-Na Wen didn't play themselves.) This show featured a trolley. "Tomorrow, tomorrow We'll start the day tomorrow with a song or two. Tomorrow, tomorrow We'll start the day tomorrow with a smile for you. Til then I hope you're feeling happy, Til then I hope your day is snappy. Tomorrow, tomorrow It soon will be tomorrow and be our day We will say a very happy tomorrow to you." This show has inspired a current show, which can be seen as a spin-off or successor, complete with a similar name. "I'll be back, when the week is new. And I'll have more ideas for you. And you'll have things you'll want to talk about. I will too." (Having never seen this show, Mrs Wolf figured it out from the previous clues, so you know it's not something obscure and unknown.)

I only speak for myself, which is why I made it clear that I only mentioned things I would or would not recognize. I know I am familiar with different media than the other posters here, but I can mention what would or would not work for me. It's not like I gave any actual clues for the movie, and I can see why it's tricky to identify this one by using or not using actor names of the cast. I absolutely had to post something because we were completely stalled trying to name a movie about a female character based on a real woman when this movie didn't have one. Since there wasn't one, the clue was incorrect and pointing us away from the correct answer and toward other movies. (That's how I thought it had to be some sort of historical drama.) If all the clues were correct, I would have just noted I disqualified myself and left it at that (so others would know I was unable to finish the round.) And yes, I like to play also, so I hate to disqualify myself. I'd rather lose than disqualify myself or cheat, but this time I was too confused...and it was a good thing I did look it up because now we can move on.

I also did an image search. I don't recognize him, either.

It is neither "Sesame Street" nor "Captain Kangaroo." And yes, I included Bob in the list to eliminate his show from consideration.

Bill Nye's earliest listed credit is a show he did in 1984, which was not this show. A lot of the OTHER people sound like 70s stars, though.... Beware concluding that something is "obvious."

*gives up and does a search, disqualifying himself from answering* We'd be here all decade with the current clues. The lead female role was a FICTITIOUS person. She was NOT based on a real person, she was invented as a fictional character by the original writer, who did not base her specifically on a real person. (That's not just my opinion-the character has a wikipedia page and it begins by saying she "...is a fictional character and..." ) Having never seen the movie, I MIGHT have recognized this character by name. I would have been able to connect an actor to the movie with precisely one actor- and if he was named, it would be too obvious a clue.

Why do you keep asking me about it? I keep getting ready to DROP it. I find the chapter includes that but does not ONLY teach that. It is a rich chapter with a lot to tell us. And some people think that it tells us God Almighty cursed the ground, when it's specific that He's saying the ground is cursed, and never says HE cursed it. Without an explicit statement one way or the other, exactly who cursed the ground goes to opportunity and motive. Not only can I see that, I mentioned it before you did. *points up the thread* However, the PARAPHRASE of the verse I mentioned in Romans 8 rather specifically said that God Almighty cursed the ground, when He was not named as the curser, neither in Genesis 3 when it happened, nor in the texts of Romans 8... but he's named when the editor did the PARAPHRASE. It's easy to prove he inserted the name. IMHO, it's relatively easy to conclude he was incorrect in his thinking to think so. Meanwhile, RG wanted to know about what we previously discussed, so we discussed it. In the process, you lauded TLB highly and quoted those verses. I pointed out the relative strengths and weaknesses of relying on a paraphrase Bible, and used the verses you quoted to illustrate my point. All of that- the recommendation and the disagreement- had nothing to do with the initial question, but this happens sometimes in dialogues. Since you insisted I explain, and you brought in the side-discussion of versions, I hardly think it's appropriate to act like I'm the SOLE poster who didn't stick STRICTLY to the question. For God's sake, are we finished with Genesis 3 now? We've never met, but give them a scritch for me if you get a chance. Cats like scritches.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055894/

This long-running show had guests appear occasionally. They included Lou Ferrigno, Yo-Yo Ma, Bill Nye, Bob Keeshan, Margaret Hamilton, Michael Keaton, Bill Bixby, Ming-Na Wen, Wynton Marsalis, Marcel Marceau, Tony Bennett, Rita Moreno, Branford Marsalis, Itzhak Perlman, David Copperfield, LeVar Burton. (In fairness, Bob Keeshan, Michael Keaton, Margaret Hamilton and Ming-Na Wen didn't play themselves.) This show featured a trolley. "Tomorrow, tomorrow We'll start the day tomorrow with a song or two. Tomorrow, tomorrow We'll start the day tomorrow with a smile for you. Til then I hope you're feeling happy, Til then I hope your day is snappy. Tomorrow, tomorrow It soon will be tomorrow and be our day We will say a very happy tomorrow to you."

Don't know about Christopher Lloyd, but I'll take a wild swing here. I'm suspecting I have the GENRE correct, but that still covers a lot of ground. "Quo Vadis?"

I gave as simplified an explanation as I can manage-while still answering the question and being correct- in my initial post. RG got that. I know you seem to be especially keen on the TLB, but I'm not, and I noted why in general, and specifically with what I consider to be an error in what you quoted. I said it contradicted what we read elsewhere. You asked the relevance to Romans 8:20-21 there was in Genesis 3. So, I explained- including how the TLB introduced an error by changing a word to match the editor's beliefs. You responded by saying this didn't really answer her question, and wasn't brief and simple. Well, correct- I already did that one, and in this specific case, I was answering YOUR question, not HERS (which I answered already.) I wouldn't have gone into the contradiction between TLB in Genesis 3 and Romans 8, but you DID ask me to explain.

"Everybody Loves Raymond"?

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.