Abi: No I haven't studied midrash per se. My academic advisor teaches a course on ancient Hebraic methods of searching the Scriptures, which I took as a graduate student. It included the methods themselves, which are named and have specific rules. In Greek we would call them hermeneutical principles. The course also included examples of rulings or applications of the methods. In Greek the term for this is exegesis. The Hebraic equivalent of exegesis is also the term, midrash, which can be confusing.
Actually, I didn't find your explanation confusing at all. If anything, it cleared up some confusion. Midrash is a term I understand well. Exegesis on the other hand, was one of those terms tossed around in TWI that I never could quite grasp the meaning of. Now I have the meaning. Thanks!!!
I must admit though, I am completely lost on your dissertation. What is 'Menology'? What is the sacred calendar? Are you referring to the Jewish calendar, which is based upon the cycles of the moon? What is chiasmic?
As an aside, the menorah has 4 branches on each side. The center branch is used to light the others with.
Dan, somewhere in this thread, I believe it was you who said you did not believe Moses wrote Gensis, pointing out he would have had to write about his own death.
I thought you might find this interesting. It is from Wikipedia and the entire article can be found HERE
The four sources
J — the Jahwist. The oldest source, concerned with narratives, making up half of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. J describes a human-like God, called Yahweh (or rather YHWH) throughout, and has a special interest in the territory of the Kingdom of Judah and individuals connected with its history. J has an extremely eloquent style.
E — the Elohist. E parallels J, often duplicating the narratives. Makes up a third of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. E describes a human-like God initially called Elohim, and Yahweh subsequent to the incident of the burning bush, at which Elohim reveals himself as Yahweh. E focuses on the Kingdom of Israel and on the Shiloh priesthood, has a moderately eloquent style.
D — the Deuteronomist. D takes the form of a series of sermons about the Law, and consists of most of Deuteronomy. Its distinctive term for God is YHWH Elohainu, translated in English as "The Lord our God."
P — the Priestly source. Preoccupied with the centrality of the priesthood, and with lists (especially genealogies), dates, numbers and laws. P describes a distant and unmerciful God, referred to as Elohim. P's narratives partly duplicate those of J and E, but alter details. P consists of about a fifth of Genesis, substantial portions of Exodus and Numbers, and almost all of Leviticus. P has a low level of literary style.
"Sin-consciousness" is often self-consciousness I've noticed. Better to be HIM-conscious and confess sin when you need to.
I have to say, "wow", too, Linda. All of your stuff. Enough with the "enough already!" Very seriously, your pearls are not unappreciated here. Lots of good stuff I need to read several more times... I did look up manology and chiasmic... was surprised to find them! Let me know when you're ready with the narrative answer to the 1Co. 12 question. Haven't touched it, yet, myself. Start with the short answer, if you must.
I agree with Abi... I didn't see the confusion that supposedly brought... only clarification. Thanks for sharing. The "nifty pics" are file attachments (not available in Fast Reply... go to Add Reply or More Options). Select pic on your computer (Browse), click Upload, and it will paste a clickable thumbnail (sounds like a new product for ladies!) Others put full pictures in their posts... probably with the IMG function linked to a pic on the internet... I'm going to try that soon.
Roy, now that's what I'm talking about! Thank you, brother!
Eyes, you are a darling, and thanks for your addition to the "big things" thread! Yes, I found the right controls :B) (aren't you glad I didn't put that in PINK? Couldn'tadunnit without you! (I had tried.)
chi·as·ma (plural chi·as·mas or chi·as·ma·ta)
noun
Definition:
1. crossing over of body parts: a crossing over of biological tissue, e.g. the intersection of the optic nerves
2. crossing point of chromosome parts: the point at which two chromatids join during the fusion and exchange of genetic material crossing over in cell division
[Mid-19th century. Via modern Latin< Greek khiasma "crosspiece" < khiazein "mark with an X" < khi "the letter chi"]
chi·as·mal adjective
chi·as·mic adjective
trying this:
It worked, somewhat! That's Liz and myself on the left. From the right, Sarah (our daughter) and husband Javy, Rachel (our daughter) and Tim her husband, and Eden, their son. Couple in the middle are Tim's parents. Missing: Lauren, our middle daughter.
Cool thread, Another Dan [Love the family photo]! Great posts everyone!!!!!...Matter of fact – this is a GREAT thread because you want ME to talk about MY beliefs. Oh yeah, now we're talkin'…er…uhm…well, actually I'm doing the talking…well more like typing…okay, technically if you're reading this – I'm done with the typing – you're doing the reading… oh, never mind! Anyway - I swear by all that's boring I'm gonna make you regret the day I laid eyes on your post # 1 ! I am not the least bit shy in letting everyone here know how screwed up I am doctrinally.
Your survey questions are in bold – my answers are in blue.
Adam and Eve are historical figures, who lived 5000 - 7000 years ago. T/F/U
A qualified true. I believe Adam and Eve are historical figures – but I think they lived a little further back in the timeline. Hugh Ross mentions in one of his books – that cave drawings indicating religious concepts appear about 35,000 years ago.
Jesus of Nazareth uniquely represented the Creator as His Son. T/F/U
True. Maybe at this point I should mention I'm a Trinitarian too – if that matters to anyone. That's right – I'm three times as confused about the identity of God.
The risen Jesus Christ is my Lord. T/F/U
Absolutely true!
The Book of Job is allegorical. That is, it attempts to explain human suffering using fictional characters. T/F/U
False. Considering references to Job are in the Old and New Testament I believe Job was a real person – who really experienced those things. However, I don't think the book explains human suffering – but does show quite a difference between our wisdom/perspective and God's.
The disciple John, one of "the twelve", wrote 5 Books: John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelation. T/F/U
True.
Paul wrote Hebrews. T/F/U
False. The literary style and vocabulary don't hit me as that of Paul. Not really concerned about it – all Scripture is inspired of God.
Moses wrote Genesis. T/F/U
True. Quite a few New Testament references attribute it to Moses. See second half of my response to who wrote Hebrews.
David wrote the 23rd Psalm. T/F/U
Unsure. Never thought about it until you asked. Again see my Hebrews response.
Paul's doctrine of "by faith alone" contradicts James' doctrine, as recorded in the Book of James. T/F/U
Unsure –on how to resolve the two. I lean towards James giving Christians a way to evaluate their faith – if it is genuine or not.
Four were crucified with Jesus. T/F/U
Unsure – and don't see why it should matter anyway – Jesus should get top billing on this one!
I speak in tongues in my private prayer life. T/F/U
False. I stopped doing that years ago. Don't think what I did was genuine.
God loves homosexuals. T/F/U
True.
Homosexuality is not a sin. T/F/U
False. But I don't make a big deal over this like TWI did. I had a good friend in college who was gay - we still communicate with each other...Guess I'm not cut out for the hell, fire, and brimstone bandwagon. You may want to refer to my true confessions below under some of Jesus' teachings being impossible to carry out.
God does not hate. T/F/U
False. In the Bible, it appears God experiences emotions – who says I have to attribute God's emotional expressions to a figure of speech?
1 Cor. 12 says that all nine "manifestations" of the spirit are the privilege of everyone who has been "born again" by confessing Jesus as their lord, and believing God raised him from the dead. (When combined with Romans 10:9 and other scriptures.) T/F/U
False or maybe unsure – how about Falsure? I lean towards cessation – that it was no longer available after the church was firmly established. And on another issue -my take on I Corinthians 12 "distributing severally as he wills" is in reference to God – in other words God decides who gets what – and not all nine…But like a lot of things – I may be wrong – there's nothing saying God can't distribute these manifestations again – or that He hasn't done so throughout the church's history…On this topic I have to defer to my own experiences. I've never been around anything that I thought was a genuine manifestation.
The prayer of a believer can move God to do something He would not otherwise have done. T/F/U
False. I wouldn't put it that way – though I would say there's a partnership between God and the one who's praying. I acknowledge the sovereignty of God but cannot fathom it. Maybe at times – God deems the way something happens is through someone's prayer.
Mormonism, Catholicism, and JW's are perversions of Christianity. T/F/U
False. I'll let God be the judge on any religion. Heck, I sometimes wonder how much I've perverted Christianity! Besides, I think it's a beautiful thing that we all don't think alike – matter of fact I think God intended it that way – by a weird checks and balances system made up of the entire human race.
Some of Jesus' teaching is impossible to carry out. T/F/U
False. But I will say it does seem that way most of the time. Boy, I tell yah – I wish He wouldn't have made such a big deal over being angry with a brother or looking on a woman with lust – doggonit – I've gotta be the world's biggest sinner…But I am working to better myself. Figure if I don't do those things on the Sabbath [sort of a day of rest…from sin] [oops – I'm jumping ahead on the Sabbath question] I'm that much a better person for it.
"Sin consciousness" is not in the believer's self-interest. T/F/U
False. Since I left TWI I've quit sedating my conscience. You know gauges on a dashboard are a good thing – they serve a purpose.
The canon is closed. Another authentic letter of Paul will never surface. T/F/U
True.
There are authentic apostles and prophets of God living and ministering today. T/F/U
Falsure [see my waffling answer to I Corinthians 12].
Requiring narrative answers (short or long):
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he "must be born again," what did he mean?
My Study Bible says the phrase literally means "born from above" – which emphasizes the source of the new birth – God! Which goes along with Him talking about the wind blows, you hear its sound but can't tell where it comes from/goes and those who are born of the Spirit. Again – emphasizing the source – the Holy Spirit – which cannot be controlled or understood by us.
What are your thoughts on the Fourth commandment (not to work on the sabbath)?
I don't think the commandment is mentioned that much in the New Testament – like the other nine – so I interpret that as it losing a big priority for believers. I do think it's a good idea to set aside one day a week to recoup, recharge the battery, refocus on what's important in life.
Abi, looks like we're posting the same time! Right. I have a number of books that discuss those terms. A prominent example are the two creation accounts, which are purportedly J and E. There is a translation of what is set forth as JUST the J version of Genesis, which I found interesting enough to browse at the library, but not interesting enough to purchase. I believe the author makes a case for "J" being a woman, BTW.
T-bone, looks like we're posting at the same time! You're absolutely right, I'm looking for what YOU believe! And you made your points very nicely.
Regarding doctrine, I must say I feel it is profoundly important, but I get such a kick out of enjoying the areas of agreement I have with folks, rather than feeling the need, always, to swing them over to what I think is true, in every detail. There is a place for confrontation of error, and there is a place for discussion, with respect. Somehow, it took me a long time to appreciate how wonderful it can be to visit the "second place." It's so enjoyable and PROFITABLE, in fact, I rarely visit the "first place" any more!
edit: Oh, and Abi, actually, I do own a copy of that book I mentioned. It's called The Hidden Book in the Bible subtitle: The discovery of the first prose masterpiece. "Translated, Restored and Introduced by Richard Elliott Friedman, author of Who Wrote the Bible." Must have found it at a used bookstore! Oddly, no comma after "Restored."
Wait! Here's another, and I'm not sure to which I was referring earlier! The Book of J "Translated from the Hebrew by David Rosenberg" (Good Jewish name!)
snip from The Book of J:
As I have said, few fixed ideas are as difficult to dislodge as the notion that the bible is a "holy book" in an altogether unique way. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, the sacred writings of the Asian religions, not to mention other rival works, somehow do not have the curious prestige that the Bible retains even for secularists and unbelievers. It is of absolute importance for the reader of the Book of J to begin with the realization that J did not think in terms of sacred texts as she composed the scrolls that constitue her achievement. The stories of the Creation, of the Patriarchs, of Joseph, of Moses, were not for her holy tales, not at all. Of all the extraordinary ironies concerning J, the most remarkable is that this fountainhead of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam simply was not a religious writer. This is not because, as some scholars insist, Yahweh was All-in-All to her. The Yahwist, unlike every subsequent biblical writer, shows no awe or fear of Yahweh. Her Yahweh is a lively fellow, dynamic in the extreme, who has very little in common with the God of the Priestly Author or of Jeremiah, though something in common with the Davidic God of the Court Historian. J's marvelous contemporary is not primarily a comic and ironic writer, as she was, but his sophistication matches her acute consciousness of paradox, and I will argue later that both can be said to have left their hearts behind them in the heroic age of David and the urbane civilization of Solomon. We can fantasize them as two mature survivors of a greater time, pondering the splendors of their people while enduring the equivocal reign of Solomon's inadequate son, Rehoboam, under whom the United Monarchy and its empire came apart. The age into which J survived was hardly an era of heroes.
I think it accurate to observe that J had no heroes, only heroines. Sarai and Rachel are wholly admirable, and Tamar, in proportion to the narrative space she occupies, is very much the most vivid portrait in J. But Abram, Jacob, and Moses receive a remarkably mixed treatment...
Abi: You're right. Modern menorahs have 9 points rather than 7. The Bible specifies a 7-point candlestick for the tabernacle, and the friese (sp?) that depicts the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE shows the 7-point menorah. I read somewhere that the sages determined a 9-point menorah would be used until such time as the Temple could be rebuilt and its original appointments be restored.
Even still, the 9-point menorah is a chiasmic structure. In literary terms, chiasm (or chiasmus) is a device for expressing the bilateral parallel ("mirroring") of a series of concepts. Bullinger (Companion Bible) shows this in his section diagrams of Scripture. He calls it "inversion". As for the menorah, whether 7-point or 9-point, the "bilateral parallel" is the mirroring of one set of candlesticks with the other set on the opposite side of the lampstand/stem.
The "sacred calendar" is somewhat of a scholarly term used to distinguish the "sacred" arrangement of the seven feasts from the "civil" arrangement. The civil calendar has the Hebrew month of Tishri at the beginning of the year. (Coincides with September or October.) The sacred calendar has Nisan at the beginning of the year. (Coincides with March or April.) The older of the two is the civil version. According to Leviticus 23 God instructed Moses to make Passover the first feast and Nisan the first month of the year. Thus the term, "sacred".
"Menology" is a calendar of months (from Greek for month, i.e. men). It came to be used in the Greek Orthodox tradition as the annual (or bi-annual or tri-annual) cycle of celebrations related to the saints. The term is not used much at all today. For my dissertation I needed a single term to summarize a broader concept, namely the figurative aspects of the "sacred" calendar of the seven feasts as formulated in Lev. 23.
When John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" it was a figure of speech called hypocatastasis. Simplified, it means something like "name calling". It would be like calling someone with sloppy eating habits, "Pig!" Only one noun is used, another is implied, and no verb or modifier is used. It is the strongest expression of resemblance between two things (more powerful than simile or metaphor). Everything associated with the sacrificial Passover lamb would thus refer to Jesus. "Taking away the sins of the world" is one aspect that John the Baptist actually expressed the second time he pointed to Jesus and called him the Lamb of God.
Paul speaks of Christ as our "Passover", a similar idea. Since Passover is but one of seven feasts (Heb. moed, meaning "appointed time") on the sacred calendar, we can wonder if/how he is associated with the other six. These individual associations and an association with the entire annual cycle are implied by the term, "menology". (Technically then, "menology" is hypocatastasis when used this way.)
T-Bone: You shed light on a confusing aspect of biblical study when you said, "who says I have to attribute God's emotions to a figure of speech?" Your question implies that God's emotion would be an attribute (aspect relative to) the figure. In actuality it is the reverse. The figure expresses an attribute of God's emotion. In the Bible figures are a way of drawing attention to something so profound that no literal ordinary language could express the depth of it. To speak of God's "hatred" is to speak of repugnance so profound that no human hatred could grasp it. Your question was very helpful.
See why I prefer short answers? Thanks for the questions tho'. It's good practice. I'm writing my dissertation now, which can be an isolating experience. Having feedback helps tremendously. Does color help? :unsure:
Dan: Love your family pic! This is what it's really all about!
I think it accurate to observe that J had no heroes, only heroines. Sarai and Rachel are wholly admirable, and Tamar, in proportion to the narrative space she occupies, is very much the most vivid portrait in J. But Abram, Jacob, and Moses receive a remarkably mixed treatment...[/i]
"We can fantasize them" indeed!
Thanks Dan. Somewhere, perhaps on the second or third page now, there is a thread I started call "The Harlot by the Side of the Road" which was based on a book by the same title. There is quite a bit of discussion there about J and the possibility J was a female. There is also quite a bit about the heroines (sp?) of the bible, who seem to have gotten lost over the ages.
I have to tell you, you did a wonderful job of answering my questions! Thank you so much for taking the time to write that all out in terms I could understand. Now I can go back and re-read the initial post you made regarding your dissertation. :)
True. Quite a few New Testament references attribute it to Moses. See second half of my response to who wrote Hebrews.
have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Here, couldn't the genitive mean the Book "about" Moses? Or refering to Genesis figuratively as "the Book of Moses"? I'm curious as to what other NT references there are ascribing to Moses the authorship of Genesis.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
None of these seem to be saying that Moses actually wrote Genesis.
I agree with you and others, that who wrote what might not be all that significant. I agree with you also regarding Hebrews. I think if there's anything we can know for sure, it is that it was NOT written by Paul, unless he was in a completely different frame of mind and decided to use completely different terminology and style. Paul's writings and the Book of Hebrews are both in a rabbinical style, but quite different from one another. The only NT personage I would consider a likely suspect would be Appolos, who was "mighty in the Scriptures," and proved from them that Jesus was the Christ. Since the author chooses not to name himself, I'm content that he remains unknown. Like "Eyes" said about Ps 23. Don't know, but I like it.
have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Here, couldn't the genitive mean the Book "about" Moses? Or refering to Genesis figuratively as "the Book of Moses"? I'm curious as to what other NT references there are ascribing to Moses the authorship of Genesis.
I think that is a bit strained – Genesis is a book about Moses? Genesis is a book of beginnings. Moses is not even born until Exodus 2.
As to other New Testament references,
Luke 24:25-27 ESV
25And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26(AE) Was it not necessary that(AF) the Christ should suffer these things and enter into(AG) his glory?" 27And(AH) beginning with(AI) Moses and(AJ) all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
In verse 27, Jesus began with Moses – did He begin with the person of Moses or the books that Moses wrote? I lean toward He's referring to the Pentateuch.
Acts 15:1 ESV
1(A) But some men came down from Judea and were teaching(B) the brothers, "Unless you are(C) circumcised(D) according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
This may be a bit of a stretch – maybe not. The passage refers to circumcision as the custom of Moses. However, the covenant of circumcision was instituted by God with Abraham in Genesis 17.
Genesis 17:9-14 ESV
9And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a(M) sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is(N) eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or(O) bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
So why is the custom attributed to Moses? I don't know – unless it's another way of citing the reference – not by book title – but by author. Like I would refer to the book 7 Habits of Highly Successful People by Stephen Covey by saying "Real success is built on Covey's principles."
T-bone: thanks for your work. First off, I should mention that I've discovered my own faux pas, and glad that nobody beat me to it. As you rightly pointed out, Moses was not even born by the time Genesis ended, and yet I'd said that it recorded his death. This is in Duet. 34:5, not at all in Genesis. I know where the brain-fart occured. Generally, the ascription to Moses is for the first five of the Books of the Bible. As we were correctly taught, in Jesus' day and to this day among Jews, the Tanach is divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Torah, or the Pentateuch, the first five books, have long been ascribed to Moses. It is my feeling that we may be reading into Jesus' statements to say that he affirmed this authorship, but may rather have been using "Moses" as a figure for "the Law" (the first five books). Again, some may see this as periferal, and I won't argue with that. I agree that it may be a 'stretch' regarding the genitive, but I'm just wondering about the bald assertions that Moses was indeed the author. Certainly, as Luke couldn't have been witness to the birth of Christ, Moses wasn't witness of the creation. Perhaps it was given to him by revelation on the mountain when he received the Law, and wrote it later, or it was in a sense "dicatated" to him by God as he wrote it.
Regardless, someone wrote Genesis by "inspiration of God." That is my conviction, anyway. Whether it was Moses, I must confess to being U. (unsure)
BTW, I am a fan of the 7 Habits, with reservations, of course!
Garth, are you Garth Patterson? (You can PM me if you like). Anyway, again, you seem to be one of the disillusioned ones (a great term that set me up for a snappy reply! --- you're no longer "illusioned"? Beat you to it.) But you're hangin'-in, and moving on. God bless you, if He exists. Yes, you get extra credit for the narrative questions.
:huh:
Yup, this is Garth Patterson (Apparently you've met me someplace in TWI or afterwards?).
Disillusioned? Ohh I dunno if I'd put it exclusively that way. ... I guess its more of a case of where I realized that accepting what I was taught/told/read/dictated to by faith, and without the option to question/scrutinize/challenge/criticize/and even REJECT, ... was no longer a viable option to me. And the religious mindset seemed (to me anyway) as demanding and expecting precisely THAT. Particularly when you have various religious doctrines that frown upon the skeptical and scrutinizing mind; doctrines that expect (expect, mind you) for you to believe what they are all about BEFORE you see, or even if you DO NOT see. ... Too bad, so sad, believe it anyway, or the deity in question shall make you regret it, and often in a "It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an Angry GOD" scenario.
Well, ... Been there, Done that, Burnt the t-shirt and am DONE with that, thank you very much!
P.S., and there are actually people who get offended at people like me who make that kind of decision. ... Can you believe that? :o
GarthP wrote: P.S., and there are actually people who get offended at people like me who make that kind of decision. ... Can you believe that?
Sure I can. (GSC/Doctrine/describeyourselfdoctrinally). And it's very easy for the Pharisee to feel smug that he has remained "faithful" while another has "fallen." He is "enlightened" while another dwells in darkness. His tithe makes him very comfortable (not really the purpose of the tithe, bro) and doesn't understand authentic sacrifice.
I can't recall where I met you, but I think it was after your TWI experience. Can't remember the context, but seem to remember it was a cyberspace thing.
I'm afraid I fall into the category of one who fears falling into the hands of the living God. More properly, I feel that I am in His hands, and it is a fearful thing. There are "all stripes" here at GSC, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who would get offended at people like me, too!
One of my biggest fears is of being the one to whom Jesus says, "depart from me, you that work iniquity; I never knew you." This is addressed to the religious zealot, who lived his life blind to the fact that his religion actually distanced him from the true purposes of life. Fails miserably! I'm still working it out.
<snip> There are "all stripes" here at GSC, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who would get offended at people like me, too!
You won't be alone. :)
Anyways, I wanted to thank you for your advice in the thread about PFAL. I did so there but it most likely will get lost in the shuffle. You're a wise man!
Thanks, Larry.... I actually just posted another reply to you over there... I see we're both up on Saturday morning, posting instead of watching cartoons! I must shut this laptop and get some work done around here.... still haven't done a lick of work on my little boat in over three weeks.
Always nice to be appreciated. I appreciate you, too
edit: the selection of avatars is interesting (have you seen the animated pig one? whats the name? excorpse or something?) Your cover doesn't seem to match what's in the book! But that's probably part of your evil plan!
I get that a lot. It's always a physical thing. Many like me for my avatar instead of my mind. ;)
I like you for your mind too. I recently got caught up with a thread that you've been active on. Maybe you and my husband can get together for a round of golf sometimes. He usually is too busy to play.
Your cover doesn't seem to match what's in the book! But that's probably part of your evil plan!
I can't think far enuf ahead to make any plans. Just waking up and deciding to get out of bed in the morning is enuf to deal with.
Maybe you and my husband can get together for a round of golf sometimes. He usually is too busy to play.
I'm game, if he is. I can't remember how close (geographically) we are. Today I played at the Big Met in Cleveland, OH. First time I ever did and I must say -- it's one of the better courses I've played on.
I'm game, if he is. I can't remember how close (geographically) we are. Today I played at the Big Met in Cleveland, OH. First time I ever did and I must say -- it's one of the better courses I've played on.
We're in the St. Louis area, not too far away. I think we went through Cleveland on vacation last year. We'll see.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
8
53
11
Popular Days
Aug 2
27
Aug 1
16
Jul 30
13
Aug 19
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 20 posts
Eyesopen 8 posts
anotherDan 53 posts
LindaR 11 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2007
27 posts
Aug 1 2007
16 posts
Jul 30 2007
13 posts
Aug 19 2007
9 posts
Posted Images
Abigail
Wow, Linda!!!!!!!
Actually, I didn't find your explanation confusing at all. If anything, it cleared up some confusion. Midrash is a term I understand well. Exegesis on the other hand, was one of those terms tossed around in TWI that I never could quite grasp the meaning of. Now I have the meaning. Thanks!!!
I must admit though, I am completely lost on your dissertation. What is 'Menology'? What is the sacred calendar? Are you referring to the Jewish calendar, which is based upon the cycles of the moon? What is chiasmic?
As an aside, the menorah has 4 branches on each side. The center branch is used to light the others with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Dan, somewhere in this thread, I believe it was you who said you did not believe Moses wrote Gensis, pointing out he would have had to write about his own death.
I thought you might find this interesting. It is from Wikipedia and the entire article can be found HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
"Sin-consciousness" is often self-consciousness I've noticed. Better to be HIM-conscious and confess sin when you need to.
I have to say, "wow", too, Linda. All of your stuff. Enough with the "enough already!" Very seriously, your pearls are not unappreciated here. Lots of good stuff I need to read several more times... I did look up manology and chiasmic... was surprised to find them! Let me know when you're ready with the narrative answer to the 1Co. 12 question. Haven't touched it, yet, myself. Start with the short answer, if you must.
I agree with Abi... I didn't see the confusion that supposedly brought... only clarification. Thanks for sharing. The "nifty pics" are file attachments (not available in Fast Reply... go to Add Reply or More Options). Select pic on your computer (Browse), click Upload, and it will paste a clickable thumbnail (sounds like a new product for ladies!) Others put full pictures in their posts... probably with the IMG function linked to a pic on the internet... I'm going to try that soon.
Roy, now that's what I'm talking about! Thank you, brother!
Eyes, you are a darling, and thanks for your addition to the "big things" thread! Yes, I found the right controls :B) (aren't you glad I didn't put that in PINK? Couldn'tadunnit without you! (I had tried.)
chi·as·ma (plural chi·as·mas or chi·as·ma·ta)
noun
Definition:
1. crossing over of body parts: a crossing over of biological tissue, e.g. the intersection of the optic nerves
2. crossing point of chromosome parts: the point at which two chromatids join during the fusion and exchange of genetic material crossing over in cell division
[Mid-19th century. Via modern Latin< Greek khiasma "crosspiece" < khiazein "mark with an X" < khi "the letter chi"]
chi·as·mal adjective
chi·as·mic adjective
trying this:
It worked, somewhat! That's Liz and myself on the left. From the right, Sarah (our daughter) and husband Javy, Rachel (our daughter) and Tim her husband, and Eden, their son. Couple in the middle are Tim's parents. Missing: Lauren, our middle daughter.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Cool thread, Another Dan [Love the family photo]! Great posts everyone!!!!!...Matter of fact – this is a GREAT thread because you want ME to talk about MY beliefs. Oh yeah, now we're talkin'…er…uhm…well, actually I'm doing the talking…well more like typing…okay, technically if you're reading this – I'm done with the typing – you're doing the reading… oh, never mind! Anyway - I swear by all that's boring I'm gonna make you regret the day I laid eyes on your post # 1
! I am not the least bit shy in letting everyone here know how screwed up I am doctrinally.
Your survey questions are in bold – my answers are in blue.
Adam and Eve are historical figures, who lived 5000 - 7000 years ago. T/F/U
A qualified true. I believe Adam and Eve are historical figures – but I think they lived a little further back in the timeline. Hugh Ross mentions in one of his books – that cave drawings indicating religious concepts appear about 35,000 years ago.
Jesus of Nazareth uniquely represented the Creator as His Son. T/F/U
True. Maybe at this point I should mention I'm a Trinitarian too – if that matters to anyone. That's right – I'm three times as confused about the identity of God.
The risen Jesus Christ is my Lord. T/F/U
Absolutely true!
The Book of Job is allegorical. That is, it attempts to explain human suffering using fictional characters. T/F/U
False. Considering references to Job are in the Old and New Testament I believe Job was a real person – who really experienced those things. However, I don't think the book explains human suffering – but does show quite a difference between our wisdom/perspective and God's.
The disciple John, one of "the twelve", wrote 5 Books: John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelation. T/F/U
True.
Paul wrote Hebrews. T/F/U
False. The literary style and vocabulary don't hit me as that of Paul. Not really concerned about it – all Scripture is inspired of God.
Moses wrote Genesis. T/F/U
True. Quite a few New Testament references attribute it to Moses. See second half of my response to who wrote Hebrews.
David wrote the 23rd Psalm. T/F/U
Unsure. Never thought about it until you asked. Again see my Hebrews response.
Paul's doctrine of "by faith alone" contradicts James' doctrine, as recorded in the Book of James. T/F/U
Unsure – on how to resolve the two. I lean towards James giving Christians a way to evaluate their faith – if it is genuine or not.
Four were crucified with Jesus. T/F/U
Unsure – and don't see why it should matter anyway – Jesus should get top billing on this one!
I speak in tongues in my private prayer life. T/F/U
False. I stopped doing that years ago. Don't think what I did was genuine.
God loves homosexuals. T/F/U
True.
Homosexuality is not a sin. T/F/U
False. But I don't make a big deal over this like TWI did. I had a good friend in college who was gay - we still communicate with each other...Guess I'm not cut out for the hell, fire, and brimstone bandwagon. You may want to refer to my true confessions below under some of Jesus' teachings being impossible to carry out.
God does not hate. T/F/U
False. In the Bible, it appears God experiences emotions – who says I have to attribute God's emotional expressions to a figure of speech?
1 Cor. 12 says that all nine "manifestations" of the spirit are the privilege of everyone who has been "born again" by confessing Jesus as their lord, and believing God raised him from the dead. (When combined with Romans 10:9 and other scriptures.) T/F/U
False or maybe unsure – how about Falsure? I lean towards cessation – that it was no longer available after the church was firmly established. And on another issue -my take on I Corinthians 12 "distributing severally as he wills" is in reference to God – in other words God decides who gets what – and not all nine…But like a lot of things – I may be wrong – there's nothing saying God can't distribute these manifestations again – or that He hasn't done so throughout the church's history…On this topic I have to defer to my own experiences. I've never been around anything that I thought was a genuine manifestation.
The prayer of a believer can move God to do something He would not otherwise have done. T/F/U
False. I wouldn't put it that way – though I would say there's a partnership between God and the one who's praying. I acknowledge the sovereignty of God but cannot fathom it. Maybe at times – God deems the way something happens is through someone's prayer.
Mormonism, Catholicism, and JW's are perversions of Christianity. T/F/U
False. I'll let God be the judge on any religion. Heck, I sometimes wonder how much I've perverted Christianity! Besides, I think it's a beautiful thing that we all don't think alike – matter of fact I think God intended it that way – by a weird checks and balances system made up of the entire human race.
Some of Jesus' teaching is impossible to carry out. T/F/U
False. But I will say it does seem that way most of the time. Boy, I tell yah – I wish He wouldn't have made such a big deal over being angry with a brother or looking on a woman with lust – doggonit – I've gotta be the world's biggest sinner…But I am working to better myself. Figure if I don't do those things on the Sabbath [sort of a day of rest…from sin] [oops – I'm jumping ahead on the Sabbath question] I'm that much a better person for it.
"Sin consciousness" is not in the believer's self-interest. T/F/U
False. Since I left TWI I've quit sedating my conscience. You know gauges on a dashboard are a good thing – they serve a purpose.
The canon is closed. Another authentic letter of Paul will never surface. T/F/U
True.
There are authentic apostles and prophets of God living and ministering today. T/F/U
Falsure [see my waffling answer to I Corinthians 12].
Requiring narrative answers (short or long):
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he "must be born again," what did he mean?
My Study Bible says the phrase literally means "born from above" – which emphasizes the source of the new birth – God! Which goes along with Him talking about the wind blows, you hear its sound but can't tell where it comes from/goes and those who are born of the Spirit. Again – emphasizing the source – the Holy Spirit – which cannot be controlled or understood by us.
What are your thoughts on the Fourth commandment (not to work on the sabbath)?
I don't think the commandment is mentioned that much in the New Testament – like the other nine – so I interpret that as it losing a big priority for believers. I do think it's a good idea to set aside one day a week to recoup, recharge the battery, refocus on what's important in life.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Abi, looks like we're posting the same time! Right. I have a number of books that discuss those terms. A prominent example are the two creation accounts, which are purportedly J and E. There is a translation of what is set forth as JUST the J version of Genesis, which I found interesting enough to browse at the library, but not interesting enough to purchase. I believe the author makes a case for "J" being a woman, BTW.
T-bone, looks like we're posting at the same time! You're absolutely right, I'm looking for what YOU believe! And you made your points very nicely.
Regarding doctrine, I must say I feel it is profoundly important, but I get such a kick out of enjoying the areas of agreement I have with folks, rather than feeling the need, always, to swing them over to what I think is true, in every detail. There is a place for confrontation of error, and there is a place for discussion, with respect. Somehow, it took me a long time to appreciate how wonderful it can be to visit the "second place." It's so enjoyable and PROFITABLE, in fact, I rarely visit the "first place" any more!
edit: Oh, and Abi, actually, I do own a copy of that book I mentioned. It's called The Hidden Book in the Bible subtitle: The discovery of the first prose masterpiece. "Translated, Restored and Introduced by Richard Elliott Friedman, author of Who Wrote the Bible." Must have found it at a used bookstore! Oddly, no comma after "Restored."
Wait! Here's another, and I'm not sure to which I was referring earlier! The Book of J "Translated from the Hebrew by David Rosenberg" (Good Jewish name!)
snip from The Book of J:
As I have said, few fixed ideas are as difficult to dislodge as the notion that the bible is a "holy book" in an altogether unique way. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, the sacred writings of the Asian religions, not to mention other rival works, somehow do not have the curious prestige that the Bible retains even for secularists and unbelievers. It is of absolute importance for the reader of the Book of J to begin with the realization that J did not think in terms of sacred texts as she composed the scrolls that constitue her achievement. The stories of the Creation, of the Patriarchs, of Joseph, of Moses, were not for her holy tales, not at all. Of all the extraordinary ironies concerning J, the most remarkable is that this fountainhead of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam simply was not a religious writer. This is not because, as some scholars insist, Yahweh was All-in-All to her. The Yahwist, unlike every subsequent biblical writer, shows no awe or fear of Yahweh. Her Yahweh is a lively fellow, dynamic in the extreme, who has very little in common with the God of the Priestly Author or of Jeremiah, though something in common with the Davidic God of the Court Historian. J's marvelous contemporary is not primarily a comic and ironic writer, as she was, but his sophistication matches her acute consciousness of paradox, and I will argue later that both can be said to have left their hearts behind them in the heroic age of David and the urbane civilization of Solomon. We can fantasize them as two mature survivors of a greater time, pondering the splendors of their people while enduring the equivocal reign of Solomon's inadequate son, Rehoboam, under whom the United Monarchy and its empire came apart. The age into which J survived was hardly an era of heroes.
I think it accurate to observe that J had no heroes, only heroines. Sarai and Rachel are wholly admirable, and Tamar, in proportion to the narrative space she occupies, is very much the most vivid portrait in J. But Abram, Jacob, and Moses receive a remarkably mixed treatment...
"We can fantasize them" indeed!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved anotherDan
God loves us my dear friend
your welcome
peace
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Thank you, beloved Roy!
"Enjoy the waters of truth here, because the water is cool."
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
LindaR
Abi: You're right. Modern menorahs have 9 points rather than 7. The Bible specifies a 7-point candlestick for the tabernacle, and the friese (sp?) that depicts the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE shows the 7-point menorah. I read somewhere that the sages determined a 9-point menorah would be used until such time as the Temple could be rebuilt and its original appointments be restored.
Even still, the 9-point menorah is a chiasmic structure. In literary terms, chiasm (or chiasmus) is a device for expressing the bilateral parallel ("mirroring") of a series of concepts. Bullinger (Companion Bible) shows this in his section diagrams of Scripture. He calls it "inversion". As for the menorah, whether 7-point or 9-point, the "bilateral parallel" is the mirroring of one set of candlesticks with the other set on the opposite side of the lampstand/stem.
The "sacred calendar" is somewhat of a scholarly term used to distinguish the "sacred" arrangement of the seven feasts from the "civil" arrangement. The civil calendar has the Hebrew month of Tishri at the beginning of the year. (Coincides with September or October.) The sacred calendar has Nisan at the beginning of the year. (Coincides with March or April.) The older of the two is the civil version. According to Leviticus 23 God instructed Moses to make Passover the first feast and Nisan the first month of the year. Thus the term, "sacred".
"Menology" is a calendar of months (from Greek for month, i.e. men). It came to be used in the Greek Orthodox tradition as the annual (or bi-annual or tri-annual) cycle of celebrations related to the saints. The term is not used much at all today. For my dissertation I needed a single term to summarize a broader concept, namely the figurative aspects of the "sacred" calendar of the seven feasts as formulated in Lev. 23.
When John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" it was a figure of speech called hypocatastasis. Simplified, it means something like "name calling". It would be like calling someone with sloppy eating habits, "Pig!" Only one noun is used, another is implied, and no verb or modifier is used. It is the strongest expression of resemblance between two things (more powerful than simile or metaphor). Everything associated with the sacrificial Passover lamb would thus refer to Jesus. "Taking away the sins of the world" is one aspect that John the Baptist actually expressed the second time he pointed to Jesus and called him the Lamb of God.
Paul speaks of Christ as our "Passover", a similar idea. Since Passover is but one of seven feasts (Heb. moed, meaning "appointed time") on the sacred calendar, we can wonder if/how he is associated with the other six. These individual associations and an association with the entire annual cycle are implied by the term, "menology". (Technically then, "menology" is hypocatastasis when used this way.)
T-Bone: You shed light on a confusing aspect of biblical study when you said, "who says I have to attribute God's emotions to a figure of speech?" Your question implies that God's emotion would be an attribute (aspect relative to) the figure. In actuality it is the reverse. The figure expresses an attribute of God's emotion. In the Bible figures are a way of drawing attention to something so profound that no literal ordinary language could express the depth of it. To speak of God's "hatred" is to speak of repugnance so profound that no human hatred could grasp it. Your question was very helpful.
See why I prefer short answers? Thanks for the questions tho'. It's good practice. I'm writing my dissertation now, which can be an isolating experience. Having feedback helps tremendously. Does color help? :unsure:
Dan: Love your family pic! This is what it's really all about!
LR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Color or not... I don't care! Great post. Did you mention what degree you're going for? And then where to? Will you teach, or what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Thanks Dan. Somewhere, perhaps on the second or third page now, there is a thread I started call "The Harlot by the Side of the Road" which was based on a book by the same title. There is quite a bit of discussion there about J and the possibility J was a female. There is also quite a bit about the heroines (sp?) of the bible, who seem to have gotten lost over the ages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Linda,
I have to tell you, you did a wonderful job of answering my questions! Thank you so much for taking the time to write that all out in terms I could understand. Now I can go back and re-read the initial post you made regarding your dissertation. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Here, couldn't the genitive mean the Book "about" Moses? Or refering to Genesis figuratively as "the Book of Moses"? I'm curious as to what other NT references there are ascribing to Moses the authorship of Genesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
None of these seem to be saying that Moses actually wrote Genesis.
I agree with you and others, that who wrote what might not be all that significant. I agree with you also regarding Hebrews. I think if there's anything we can know for sure, it is that it was NOT written by Paul, unless he was in a completely different frame of mind and decided to use completely different terminology and style. Paul's writings and the Book of Hebrews are both in a rabbinical style, but quite different from one another. The only NT personage I would consider a likely suspect would be Appolos, who was "mighty in the Scriptures," and proved from them that Jesus was the Christ. Since the author chooses not to name himself, I'm content that he remains unknown. Like "Eyes" said about Ps 23. Don't know, but I like it.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think that is a bit strained – Genesis is a book about Moses? Genesis is a book of beginnings. Moses is not even born until Exodus 2.
As to other New Testament references,
Luke 24:25-27 ESV
25And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26(AE) Was it not necessary that(AF) the Christ should suffer these things and enter into(AG) his glory?" 27And(AH) beginning with(AI) Moses and(AJ) all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
In verse 27, Jesus began with Moses – did He begin with the person of Moses or the books that Moses wrote? I lean toward He's referring to the Pentateuch.
Acts 15:1 ESV
1(A) But some men came down from Judea and were teaching(B) the brothers, "Unless you are(C) circumcised(D) according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
This may be a bit of a stretch – maybe not. The passage refers to circumcision as the custom of Moses. However, the covenant of circumcision was instituted by God with Abraham in Genesis 17.
Genesis 17:9-14 ESV
9And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a(M) sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is(N) eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or(O) bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
So why is the custom attributed to Moses? I don't know – unless it's another way of citing the reference – not by book title – but by author. Like I would refer to the book 7 Habits of Highly Successful People by Stephen Covey by saying "Real success is built on Covey's principles."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
T-bone: thanks for your work. First off, I should mention that I've discovered my own faux pas, and glad that nobody beat me to it.
As you rightly pointed out, Moses was not even born by the time Genesis ended, and yet I'd said that it recorded his death. This is in Duet. 34:5, not at all in Genesis. I know where the brain-fart occured. Generally, the ascription to Moses is for the first five of the Books of the Bible. As we were correctly taught, in Jesus' day and to this day among Jews, the Tanach is divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Torah, or the Pentateuch, the first five books, have long been ascribed to Moses. It is my feeling that we may be reading into Jesus' statements to say that he affirmed this authorship, but may rather have been using "Moses" as a figure for "the Law" (the first five books). Again, some may see this as periferal, and I won't argue with that. I agree that it may be a 'stretch' regarding the genitive, but I'm just wondering about the bald assertions that Moses was indeed the author. Certainly, as Luke couldn't have been witness to the birth of Christ, Moses wasn't witness of the creation. Perhaps it was given to him by revelation on the mountain when he received the Law, and wrote it later, or it was in a sense "dicatated" to him by God as he wrote it.
Regardless, someone wrote Genesis by "inspiration of God." That is my conviction, anyway. Whether it was Moses, I must confess to being U. (unsure)
BTW, I am a fan of the 7 Habits, with reservations, of course!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yup, this is Garth Patterson (Apparently you've met me someplace in TWI or afterwards?).
Disillusioned? Ohh I dunno if I'd put it exclusively that way. ... I guess its more of a case of where I realized that accepting what I was taught/told/read/dictated to by faith, and without the option to question/scrutinize/challenge/criticize/and even REJECT, ... was no longer a viable option to me. And the religious mindset seemed (to me anyway) as demanding and expecting precisely THAT. Particularly when you have various religious doctrines that frown upon the skeptical and scrutinizing mind; doctrines that expect (expect, mind you) for you to believe what they are all about BEFORE you see, or even if you DO NOT see. ... Too bad, so sad, believe it anyway, or the deity in question shall make you regret it, and often in a "It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an Angry GOD" scenario.
Well, ... Been there, Done that, Burnt the t-shirt and am DONE with that, thank you very much!
P.S., and there are actually people who get offended at people like me who make that kind of decision. ... Can you believe that? :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Reply title: sympathy for the Pharisee
GarthP wrote: P.S., and there are actually people who get offended at people like me who make that kind of decision. ... Can you believe that?
Sure I can. (GSC/Doctrine/describeyourselfdoctrinally). And it's very easy for the Pharisee to feel smug that he has remained "faithful" while another has "fallen." He is "enlightened" while another dwells in darkness. His tithe makes him very comfortable (not really the purpose of the tithe, bro) and doesn't understand authentic sacrifice.
I can't recall where I met you, but I think it was after your TWI experience. Can't remember the context, but seem to remember it was a cyberspace thing.
I'm afraid I fall into the category of one who fears falling into the hands of the living God. More properly, I feel that I am in His hands, and it is a fearful thing. There are "all stripes" here at GSC, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who would get offended at people like me, too!
One of my biggest fears is of being the one to whom Jesus says, "depart from me, you that work iniquity; I never knew you." This is addressed to the religious zealot, who lived his life blind to the fact that his religion actually distanced him from the true purposes of life. Fails miserably! I'm still working it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I KNEW there was a reason I liked you (besides your avatar)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I get that a lot. It's always a physical thing. Many like me for my avatar instead of my mind. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You won't be alone. :)
Anyways, I wanted to thank you for your advice in the thread about PFAL. I did so there but it most likely will get lost in the shuffle. You're a wise man!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Thanks, Larry.... I actually just posted another reply to you over there... I see we're both up on Saturday morning, posting instead of watching cartoons! I must shut this laptop and get some work done around here.... still haven't done a lick of work on my little boat in over three weeks.
Always nice to be appreciated. I appreciate you, too
edit: the selection of avatars is interesting (have you seen the animated pig one? whats the name? excorpse or something?) Your cover doesn't seem to match what's in the book! But that's probably part of your evil plan!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I like you for your mind too. I recently got caught up with a thread that you've been active on. Maybe you and my husband can get together for a round of golf sometimes. He usually is too busy to play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I'm game, if he is. I can't remember how close (geographically) we are. Today I played at the Big Met in Cleveland, OH. First time I ever did and I must say -- it's one of the better courses I've played on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
We're in the St. Louis area, not too far away. I think we went through Cleveland on vacation last year. We'll see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.