WordWolf

"Wake up! Time to die!" "They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession." "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" "Embarrassing." "No sir. Not embarrassing, because no one's ever going to find out they're down here. 'Cause you're gonna spot 'em and you're gonna air 'em out!" "I don't work here anymore. Give it to Holden. He's good." "I did. He can breathe okay, as long as nobody unplugs him." "Home again, home again, jiggidy-jig! Gooood Evening, J.F!"

No, you're way off.

No, this show was better-known than "Firefly" when they both aired, and is still well-known much later.

"Wake up! Time to die!" "They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession." "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

This show's characters, of course, all had first names, but 4 of them rarely used them, if ever. One was played by an actor who was remembered for a previous role- and a 4th wall instant in the show poked fun at it. 3 of the main actors had no problem with science fiction. One was in an SF show before this series, one was in an SF movie before this series, and one appeared in a SF movie and 2 SF series' after this show ended.

This show's characters, of course, all had first names, but 4 of them rarely used them, if ever. One was played by an actor who was remembered for a previous role- and a 4th wall instant in the show poked fun at it.

I thought the first quote was pretty good, and I actually had to come back to it to recognize the movie. This is "Stand And Deliver."

Based on the later clue, was this "the Lawrence Welk Show?" Oddly enough, I know this show, if at all, from spoofs on cartoons. (The Flintstones, in this case.)

vpw got it from Bullinger. Genesis 1:2 saying the Earth "was tohu va bohu", and Isaiah 45:18 saying God didn't create the world "tohu" (in vain). So, we have the Earth NOT created tohu, but it being tohu in Genesis 1:2. The conclusion was that something changed things to make the Earth "tohu." Bullinger also noted the limited uses of the word "create" in Genesis 1, and claimed every instance that did not say "create" was not an instance of creation, but something closer to renovation or resupply (my wording.) The NIV has a note on Genesis 1:2 saying that the word "was" is "possibly became." I saw that in college when comparing Bibles. You'll have to give me more information. I have no idea what you mean, other than a reference to Genesis 1. Someone said Lucifer made the first heaven??? News to me. What I heard was that God made heaven and earth (the "first" one of each, although, AFAIK, the current one is the same as any previous one, plus any renovations, so this is literally the same planet, albeit one where things may have changed radically so it is metaphorically new.). The heavens included a hierarchy of spirit beings we usually call angels to make things simple, and the pre-eminent of them was "the bright and morning star", aka Lucifer. He became vain and desired worship and to replace the Almighty, so he engineered a revolt- which, predictably, lost, and the losers were cast from heaven to earth. Probably as an immediate result, the earth "became without form and void." Eventually, the title "bright and morning star" is given to Jesus, who uses it at the closing of the Book of Revelation. Mind you, even in twi it bothered me greatly there's no chapter of Scripture that lays this out in a straightforward manner. There's a few verses in Isaiah, a few verses in Ezekiel, and a few verses in Revelation. That's hardly conclusive. The 3 sections may have nothing to do with each other or the same person, and the Revelation verses may only refer to something in the future and not be fulfilled one way in the past and one way in the future. IF the Bullinger account is correct, then a possible impact of some kind to the earth by the exiled angels might produce results consistent with a meteorite collision. Something would hit the earth, the impact point would throw up ash into the sky, blocking out sunlight. Plants would starve due to lack of sunlight. Plant-eaters would starve due to a lack of plants. Meat-eaters would starve due to a lack of plant-eaters. It's one way to look at Genesis 1:2, and it would coincide with the scientists who believe a meteor collision wiped out the dinosaurs. I once saw a television show simulate the expected results of such a collision and ash-cloud. When the sun was blocked almost completely, I recited Genesis 1:2 to myself-and noted it matched the simulation. If the Bullinger account is not correct, then things were made in a progressive order. Curiously, it's the same order the scientists think things developed in. Right now, I believe the account makes it clear God's the reason we're here.

Personally, I'd rather we fold this one into the Name That Tune thread until more players show up, but since it's my turn... In the day we sweat it out in the streets of a runaway American dream.

It's also worth noting that Bart Ehrman's criticisms have been rebutted by other researchers, so one should look at that before drawing any conclusions as to what Ehrman said was true. It's too easy to latch on to what someone WANTS to believe and never look at what the opposing POV says. (This, of course, goes for wanting to automatically disagree with Ehrman as well-I mention this to save time for anyone who was going to point out I hadn't mentioned it.) He's also been discussed on and off, here.

What are the points in the red binder? If you post what they are, I can tell you how I dealt with them in twi, and how I deal with them now.

It's obvious from here, but it's easy to miss the point of Christianity when your group isn't REALLY about Christianity. From the beginning, and FROM HIS OWN ACCOUNTS, vpw never got into preaching because he believed the Bible. He wanted a profession, and his own accounts said that he wanted everyone to listen to him. So, Christianity and the Bible were only MEANS to and END. It was about making a living and attention shown to him. It's easy to dismiss JESUS in a twi-centric theology because HE'S a means to and end, too.

For people who own "Bat Out of Hell," the song "Two Out of 3 Ain't Bad" may be well-known, but otherwise, I doubt it.

Catwoman Benjamin Bratt Demolition Man

You are correct! It is your turn. You are correct again... Here's the answers... As a reader of the Dresden Files books, I was surprised to find there was a show. I have the boxed set. Eventually, I'll see all the episodes, even though they don't resemble the books very much. Wolf Lake is unusually hard to find online. However, both Quark and ST:TAS can be found for those who want to look. I think Hulu may have TAS on it, which is nice for the US posters.

Here's some unfair, obscure questions, about sort-lived TV shows. Name any ONE of them to get the round. 1) The people that brought you "Get Smart" also made a sci-fi show, spoofing Star Trek and other shows. It starred Richard Benjamin and included Conrad Janis, and had a support staff that would be pretty controversial if the show aired now, not counting the Vegetan-the logical life-form that was plant-based but looked human. 2) Lou Diamond Phillips and Graham Greene were stars in a short-lived drama about a secretive community in the Pacific NorthWest... it was secretive because the community had a lot of werewolves. If they'd tried the show a few years later, it might have done well on SyFy or something. It was a good enough drama to hold the interests of non-genre fans, providing they actually sat down to watch it. 3) A different short-lived TV show DID air on SyFy. It was about a wizard Private Investigator, and was narrated in the first person. It was based on a series of books. 4) This animated show lasted 1 1/2 seasons but is still remembered in some circles. It had some good writers but at least 1 problem because one of the animators had a form of color blindness- which meant that some tough guys wore pink uniforms and there was a lot of pink used onscreen at times. It was a Sci Fi show.

Well, if intellectual honesty and integrity is the main thing, that's a big problem. It does not surprise me that some religious organizations see it more important to maintain order-and enforce conformity- in the organization. Of course, if the entire staff was encouraged to seek new directions, success could mean anarchy in the group. Then again, it could mean discovering a lot of new ground. Either way, it's a lot of work and most organizations wouldn't want that-not just to maintain day-to-day order. If they're responsible to their denominations, I could see getting static for letting staff veer from the Official Party Line. Also, most organizations like to have their people think they're already at the pinnacle of accuracy, that they've "arrived" already.

No. I'm considering this very carefully and deliberately. I'm also looking for errors, since big changes overnight are how groups like ces/stfi ended up with spiders up people's noses. I'll post about some things Paul said in a bit-I'd like to discuss what he did and didn't say. I'm curious where we'll end up afterwards. So far, the closest thing to an objection was a cheap shot that inadvertently ended up supporting your case.

Steve Carrell Bruce Almighty Morgan Freeman

Honestly, I would never have guessed "Police Woman" did that. Then again, I NEVER watched the show.

Still lost no matter how big the font is. Is it "Hunter"?

I'm pretty sure Atticus Fitch is from "To Kill a Mockingbird" but I'm lost on the rest.

You're really shackling your understanding by relying solely on the phraseology of a book written in 1611, when your own understanding is 21st century. Even if it was all translated perfectly, you wouldn't think it meant what it meant to readers 500 years ago. That's not even addressing isolating what it said from its context. Luke 1:1-4 King James Version (KJV) 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Does "from the beginning" refer to Genesis 1:1's timeframe? No, the context indicates it's referring to the beginning of JESUS. The context of Luke 1:3 indicates "perfect understanding of all things from the very first" does not mean "when I was born, I understood everything", nor does it mean "when I first heard of Jesus, I completely understood everything about his identity and mission." It means-and this is not difficult to see- that Luke is saying that Luke was in on things from early on, and understood them as they unfolded. He's not showing up decades later, trying to figure out what happened. He was there for some things, and spoke to eyewitnesses shortly thereafter for other things. He had a "COMPLETE" understanding of the story that unfolded, NOT an ERROR-FREE understanding of all of Scripture. Frankly, you're supporting Raf's claim by bringing up that verse. It's clear Luke's saying that the intention to write Luke's account- the entire Gospel of Luke- was initiated by LUKE. The idea that you're claiming the words say-having taken them from their context- melts away when looking at how other versions dealt with the same verses. Luke 1:1-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Introduction 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 New International Version (NIV) Introduction 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 Contemporary English Version (CEV) 1 Many people have tried to tell the story of what God has done among us. 2 They wrote what we had been told by the ones who were there in the beginning and saw what happened. 3 So I made a careful study of everything and then decided to write and tell you exactly what took place. Honorable Theophilus, 4 I have done this to let you know the truth about what you have heard. The NASB, in particular, is a word-for-word translation. You made 2 mistakes there. You ignored the context, which is akin to quoting Scripture and concluding "there is no God." You also relied entirely on 1611 English- and never bothered to check the Greek, or Aramaic or whatever you think it came from. The modern versions all came DIRECTLY from the Greek texts, so it makes sense to at least check their contents- say, what your interlinear says- before deciding the archaic KJV phraseology is accurate. That's how people get "fill" to mean "replenish" when the original said "fill", then write their theology around the idea it said "replenish" rather than "fill." That's how someone can read "throughly" in a KJV and make a big deal about how it meant something different than "thoroughly"-when the original meant "thoroughly" and that was identical in meaning in 1611 but not in the 20th or 21st century. Raf's making very different points than you're objecting to. He's certainly not in the same position of a minister who preaches weekly from the pulpit and doesn't believe the words "Holy Bible." I'm carefully noting what IS and is NOT being said. You're not objecting to what's been posted, you're objecting to something different and THINKING it's what's been posted. Please don't do that. I don't see the Proverbs thing as any sort of contradiction. It's a perfectly legitimate figure of speech-and used today- to change the usage of a phrase when talking. It's fine so long as the hearers understand you. You don't answer a fool THE SAME WAY he's raving. You answer a fool according to the magnitude of his foolishness. What it would mean to say "God breathed" is an interesting avenue of discussion that clearly belongs in Doctrinal and should be discussed.

Interesting point. Care to expand on it when you get a chance?