socks

heard about this early yesterday. my best to all you middlers. how unusua! glad to hear there was little damage and no fatalities as a result. being' a leftcoaster m'self, i know it can be jarring.

Were posts really deleted? How rude. Productore' measlioso, exfilio absentade! Elete-day the ost-pay. Me next, me next! Word, dooj. Y'know, just do an Obama. What would Jay-Z do? Brush it off.

Maybe it was a mini-Rapture, sort of a practice run. Or a mini-Raptor got loose.

A researcher must consider the inherent accuracy of the text and then seek to convey the exact thoughts and meanings of the original in current vernacular. Such a rendering is a literal translation according to usage....A literal translation according to usage reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original, based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, content, remoter context, and to whom it is addressed. I agree, the quoted statement from WJC referred to the fact that literal translations of Greek (or Aramaic for that matter) won't always make sense. English barely makes sense to me sometimes, hearing what I or another person says or writes. Through my work I deal with research(ers) and data analysts There's different levels, kinds of research and I think Walter's brief description refers to them - collecting and compiling detailed data on a subject, producing views of that data through reporting mechanisms and lastly analysis, to determine meaning. For instance, I regularly run a variety of reports on internet usage, collecting basic data, and put it into reports that contain the raw numbers and then trending type reports that compare slots of time, who/what/where/when, etc. Looking at the focus area and data then, there can be even more ways to assemble and compare the data, often leading to more collection. I'm sure we have some true data researchers and analysts floating around here who are more prolific in the field than I am but I have covered that ground somewhat over the years, enough to appreciate it anyhoo. From that vantage point I think the literal translation according to usage is a legitmate end result of biblical research. It would include the data from a literal study of the words, the inherent accuracy of the text - plus any other information available from as many other environments as can be drawn from. Quality is always an issue in research. Are the goals and requirements clear from the outset? Did "everything" available get captured? Is it "good research"? Reading the results of other's research can be useful too, especially when their results differ. It's not unusual for different views to read data differently. It begs the question, how did they come up with theirs? What were the processes, the sources? A single piece of information can be viewed a 100 different ways before any conclusions are even possible. A first pass at definition may be done and repeated many times. Then, finally some effort has to be made at drawing conclusions and articulating the results. That, to me, is the LTATU. (acronyms always make for better research!!)

Jubal was cool. Harp players in the O.T. days. SWEET!!! Now - I was in a band once, named "Cosby". The story of how the name was chosen, alone, would require I first confirm the Statute of Limitations has run out on the various kinds of activity that were involved.

1 Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth. 2 Sing to the LORD, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day. 3 Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples. 4 For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods. 5 For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. 6 Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and glory are in his sanctuary. 7 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. 8 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering and come into his courts. 9 Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth. 10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. 11 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it; 12 let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy; 13 they will sing before the LORD, for he comes, he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his truth. Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. P.S. I don't believe that Jesus Christ is "God".

I think we can say for sure - two wrongs don't make a right. "Ethically", wresting content from someone's book, using it, and then claiming some form of benefit for them is kind of like a surgeon throwing a knife at someone on the street and then saying they performed surgery. Accidents didn't happen in this case. Dooja brings up a great point - postulate this, Mike - what would have happened, what did happen, when VPW asked BG Leonard is he could use part of his material in PFAL? If he did.... When he did.... I would loved to have a tape of the conversations following that. And Mike - no offense, but really - it's been several years and unfortunately it took most of that time for you to present your ideas (I still recall your original post to GS about it, and the promise of the premise) So....you're not doing anyone any favors at this point. I'm just speaking practically. I've suggested before - if online media is what you seek, start a website and put your stuff up. Start with a simple one-page essay that states your case, clearly. Can't be done? Do it - discipline your writing to the point that it's doable. Then add to it.

:)

Great tune. One of the powerful aspects of these songs and this approach to "praise" is that it is, in fact, praise TO God, Jesus Christ, and what they've done. It's different than saying "God is great, He does great things". It's saying "God, You are great. You do great things". Both are swell, far as I'm concerned. I think there's even a basis for it in the bible, for those who can't make simple decisions for themselves. It's talking to, singing to, speaking to, God. Jesus Christ. It's personal, directed. Oh no, God will have a cow if I praise Jesus Christ. How could anyone possibly think that? I dunno. It's okay to say "Jesus, my redeemer lives!" but not to say "Jesus, you are my redeemer and I know you live!" ...??? If He's living, why can't I address Him like that? Where does the bible say "don't talk to Jesus Christ, leave Him alone"? Anyway ex10, sorry for redirecting the thread topic so flagarantly. My bad. Me bad.

It's true, isn't it wordsnworks? I won't bore you with the details but the first time I heard one of their songs - not Shout, but another one - it stopped me cold. Or Hot. Or something. I was on a long drive, business, over nighter, alone, heading up highway 101 north to Eureka. Beautiful drive, sunset. Full moon coming over the hill. Popped the tape in and started FF ing through tunes, and stopped on "Sing of Your Great Love" and had to pull over and stop. Maybe it was the moment, the music, me. It reached me in a wonderful way. I listened to the tape all the way up and then back returning. Went into my Wife and said "this is - have you listened to all of this???" and she said, well, yeah. She'd given it to me. Really touched me.

I watch it. I worship it. It's just like church, only better. jen-o, chuckle at will. You know what's really funny though? My daughter's the last person in the world to do the Praise Wave. Not her thing, but she understands the "heart" as they say. She's more likely to say "Settle down Beavis!" Plus, personal hygiene. Don't wave if you haven't washed. Recently. It's just the right thing to do. I'm sure Paul would have handled it in an epistle to the Corinthians, once he got the other tough stuff worked out with them, like how to line up for dinner appropriately. American Idol, though. Yeah. Best part of the show is that every year, you get a whole new batch to select from. It's like Dieties-R-Us. All sizes, weights, even gender diversity and gender preference diversity. Can't beat it. Plus, they're young. Old dieties - once their memory starts to go, it's really hard to get the stuff you've prayed for. Worship 'em when they're young and learning the ropes. Cus once everything gets set in stone - forget it. It's like pulling teeth, they get so dogmatic about everything.

We're not that far apart on this Mike, but the distance is uncrossable IMO. B. G. Leonard - originality isn't the issue. The fact VPW revised Leonard's class on the holy spirit and still used pieces of his writing creates a conflict, literally one that only exists in VPW's handling of the material. Deceit would in the handling, not the source. Bullinger's work is a no-brainer for me. It simply should have been clearly stated. His handling of the Companion Bible doesn't cover these points we're discussing. Where he references him, that's good. It wasn't enough for other things. Consistency is key, and there was a lack of it. There's a "reasonable man" logic to determining if something's fair or right. Time and again, if this whole discussion is viewed in that light I feel that VPW's actions are questionable and bear further examination. Within biblical precepts, the reasonable man logic exists, IMO. What would a reasonable man, reasoning with God under God's rule of Law, decide to do? Love God. Love others and treat them as you would be treated. Doing the first compels us to do the second. In no way does loving and obeying God reduce the level of honesty or effort expended towards others. It does in fact require that anothers best interests be considered and served. It's a very reasonable view of life I feel.

Philip. 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. You should know better ex10. Now ya gone and done it. It's gonna get messy. Ain' no goin' back now. This horse got sorely whacked on GS a year or so ago, under similar conditions. At that time I posted my daughter had visited Hillsong Church Music Ministry in Australia with some friends of hers, a few years ago. They attended a Music Conference there, and hung out for two weeks with many of the Glassy Eyes right there at Zombie Central. She had a wonderful time, learned a lot and had a blast. Unfortunately she came back with PPS (Post Praise Syndrome) and everytime she heard the word "Jesus" she immediately wanted to pop in a Delirious CD and start waving her arms around. It took several days straight of forcing her to do word studies in our old tattered Young's Concordance and making teeny tiny font size= - 6 notes in a new Wide Margin bible to snap her back to her senses. Actually she found them to be friendly, honest and down-to-earth people and she enjoyed the time there and got a lot out of it. I've written the Hillsong folks and had some exchanges about music in general and theirs and mine specifically. They're great folks, far as I can see. As you would expect if you've listened to their music and know anything about music, they've got some very talented and knowledgable people there, some serious players too. Australia has a history of producing some very talented and successful musicians, singers and songwriters and Darlene Zschech is right down that alley. When it comes to modern Pop music they know how to do it. I'm glad American Idol had the song performed. Even more, I'm glad they recognized Jesus as Shepherd, and in their second performance recognized Him by name. "They", whoever "they" are, insulted some people while thrilling others. Good. Good. Everyone I've spoken to knew the song was about Jesus Christ, including those who've never heard the song before. :)

We talked a bit about that - that everyone was singing. Now, A.I. being what it is, or what I've thought it was anyway, they do a lot of that. Singers sing and AI singers are in a popularity competition, with some talent, sometimes a lot of talent, and lots of drama mixed in. Pretty much every season contains some music marriages made in he ll, "Neil Sedaka" nights, metal singers singing country, odd pairings and couplings of all types. Kids singing Beatles songs they've never heard. Point - while it seemed "odd" for some reason, in reality it isn't based on history. AI does a lot of odd things. This season seems to be one of the first that's gotten it's head on straight. When a contestant is "voted off" they don't sing them off with endless choruses of "so you had a bad day" or some other weepy tune. They play "celebrate me home", Kenny Loggins's tune. I like that. It puts the whole experience in perspective, putting a positive forward thinking motion to it rather than an "aaaaahhhhhhwwwwwwww.....toooo bad!" feel.(especially since some of the early non-winners do as well or better getting their careers going than the actual winners and runner ups). Then they had the winners of a Band competiton show this summer perform a couple weeks ago, 3 brothers who won it after doing a bluegrass-ish version of "This Little Light of Mine", a children's style gospel style tune from way back. They performed a full rendition of the version on AI,which again, kind of took me by a-ha. That tune was the core of what the 3 brothers played, their energy and "sound" so it was authentic for them to play it, but clearly there was no one forcing them to not do a Christian tune. I dont' actually like their version, it's a little amped up for that style, but hey, it's their thing and they seemed to do it well. So - it's innerestin'. I assume the singers sang it with at least as much conviction as they mustered for a pack of Dolly Parton songs which they'd probably never sing in a million years, maybe more. Maybe they meant it. Maybe it was right up their alley, maybe some figured hey, I sang a Dolly Parton song I'd never heard before and liked it. I'm smiling, I'm two-steppin'. Waddya want? Speaking of who, closed the show that featured her songs as choices with - a "gospel" message tune. So we are kinda wondering whaasssup with AI. I like the tone, don't feel it's unnatural, and that it's a good tone to take. Does seem like a switch. That song seemed to wrap up the vibe, the message, the call to help and hope that their charitable efforts addressed. Ignoring the Christian music market cuts out a huge piece of the listening audience, methinks. The fact that "Shout" is in the pop music mold is typical of what a lot of people listen to these days. If you like it, it's great. Some don't, prefer other styles, some think it's all wrong to begin with. So even in this field of music everyone won't be pleased, some will be insulted, some outraged, and many more left out. Some will love it for various reasons including diggin' the sound. By the by - thanks for bringing this online here ex10.

Yeah, we watched the Wed. show, with the close of "Shout" and then the singers did it again on Thursday. We were also surprised, pleasantly. It's a great song, and has a classic chorus and turnaround in it. Darlene Zschech who wrote it, has written some very kick-asz Christian music, in the pop genre. I'm definitely a fan, as is our family. I was a tad surprised they rewrote the lyric, with "My shepherd", instead of "My Jesus". The second performance Thursday I heard the original lyric "My Jesus", unless my ears put it in, they sang the original. I like this kind of tune, it typifiies the "praise" hymn or song. I was left with the question of what inspired the producers to use it. It's clearly a statement of praise and hope to God through Jesus Christ as redeemer and savior of mankind. The vignettes the Tuesday program showed displayed people in the most sorrowful of circumstance. I found the balance of the act of love to help those who need it the most - children - and the statement of joyful praise to God in that song...well, wonderfully refreshing.

Plagiarism is only one shade of a larger issue IMO, which is the "do the right thing" issue. The right thing - by who, to who, for who? For the original authors and influences? His audience? Himself? I don't paint VPW with an "evil" swath in this topic because it's a known fact that for many years VPW offered books by most of the authors he used, in the Way bookstore. Bullinger, Kenyon, many others, all in the bookstore. He didn't offer them as a "here's where that came from" or anything like that, but clearly they were there as resources. The fact books were available in the Way bookstore, doesn't fulfill crediting and recognition because the intent to do so isn't stated by having them there. They were offered however, and if you caught enough of his teachings you'd find out what he thought of the authors. He also mentions some, but not nearly all, in PFAL. He encouraged people to read those books. I simply never sat down and compared the books page for page, and didn't think much about the timeline of his exposure to them and then his own work and then how he was doing business, carrying out what he called his research and teaching ministry. If I had, I would have had the same questions and conclusions then as I do now, I think, but with the benefit of his still being alive. VPW didn't approach crediting sources through things like footnotes or appendices, or extended prologues, in the PFAL books and material, that's my point. It's not really a matter of debate, it's a fact. Bullinger to me is a good example - so much of Bullinger's material so closely resembles what's in PFAL, I'd have to conclude one thing - he was an avid student of Bullinger's material and presentation, and determined to re-present it in PFAL. He'd been teaching "PFAL" in various forms over the years and he brought it all together in "the class". I would say that VPW allowed for the minimum amount of recognition for some of his source material, in PFAL. Only to the point that in Bullinger's instance, he references him, but only in relation to figures of speech. Other areas are simply not referenced and if I were to never buy the Companion bible or any other of Bullinger's work, I'd never know. It's a topic that goes round and round. To some extent it's academic, any influence from these items is long gone, at least for me. I've thought it through for myself, as you have. Even if I changed my mind it wouldn't change what I've learned - try to determine what the right thing is, and do that. Do it as best as can be known at the time of the action. I don't think he did that. It might be difficult but that's life, not always easy. VPW had a history filled with tumultuous relationships with people he'd worked with. Specific crediting could have presented some problems for him, as in the case of B. B. Leonard. I don't doubt he was conflicted on some of this stuff, and all I can look at now is the consistency of his actions, very much the same in regards to this topic over the years he was alive.

Lots. Northfork, CA. outside of Fresno. Think he's still there.

No prob, dante. I had kinda heard those things about him too. One thing I have found surprisingly plain about him is that he was a "normal" adult. Kinda silly to say, but he wasn't an actor, like say Pee Wee Herman, who had his own career in children's TV. He didn't put on the sweater and "become" Mr. Rogers, his TV personna was an extension of how he actually was. It's a sign of our times that him being soft spoken, polite, thoughtful, positive and overall pretty cheery most of the time would be suspect to some people. (not us here but some things I've read sound like that). As if he had to have something up his sleeve at some point. People have called him "creepy" in the way he focused on children. On the other hand I read an online board where he was being discussed and a person said they believed he was a "buddah", a truly enlightened human being in our day. Reading and watching some interviews he's done, he presents himself as thoughtful and mindful, polite, and very aware of his environment and other people. It's of interest to me that in his sheer "ordinariness" that he achieved a somewhat "holy" personna in the minds of others. On the one hand he seemed so consistently focused and disciplined in what he did, on the other hand he didn't do anything you or I wouldn't, or couldn't. It takes what might be considered an ascetic "saintly" life and lives it in all of the common day to day affairs we all deal in - work, family, social interactions, friendships, success, disappointments, new experiences, etc. etc. Peel away the layers again and again and he was just working and living, but with a mindfulness of his choosing. He appears to have had a very singular and developed view of the value of human life. For myself, I can see a great truth there - that each life lived is unique, and non-repeatable. Each of us is the only one of "us" that there will ever be. Before, none like us, after, no more the same. At one point years ago that hit me, like a ton of beach balls and I haven't been able to quite get past it. It changed how I viewed life in a very simple but powerful way. He's definitely inspiring. I'm glad we can share his stuff here.

That's not the way he referred to Bullinger in PFAL, Ham. He states the Mr. E. B. was the person who'd done the most work in the field, that he knew of. I don't remember a reference there like that. Over the years I heard him refer to Bullinger in generally respectful terms. For whatever reasons he came to the conclusion that Bullinger's convictions on the topic of Jesus Christ and "the trinity" would have changed had he "lived longer", he seemed to think that Bullinger believed as he did largely due to his background and tradition. This kinda contradicts Bullinger's history, but I'm not an authority. (Juanita Carey's done some serious work on Bullinger, and her name's all over Wikipedia's piece on Bullinger so I don't think there'd be a problem citing her name here) He also made some comments from time to time about Bullinger's "people" finishing the Companion Bible after Bullinger's death and mucking it up. Bullinger didn't spring out of the ground fully formed. John Darby and Edward Irving were early developers of the "dispensational" view of the bible that Bullinger continued in, Darby was "trinitarian" and from what I've read Darby's dispensational teaching benefitted greatly from the publishing of the Schofield Study Bible which contained references to the dispensations. (I might compare the influence similarly to Bullinger's own Companion Bible which, when completed offered a very clear breakdown for studying his view of dispensations). My take is that VPW's conclusions about Bullinger's work gave him serious props. Bullinger's books and Companion Bible specifically formed much used go-to material for him over the years. It's really not a clear cut issue of plagiarism (IMO) that when VPW constantly notes things like certain figures of speech and greek definitions and such, and they're seemingly based on Bullinger's work, that he doesn't make the reference for the listener - but it's also clear that information is based on "something", some authoritative reference. PFAL kinda whooshes a person into that world, without giving much of a view of what it is, where it comes from, how it's being used to form the conclusions that are taught and how to access it directly yourself. Interlinears, greek texts, concordances, a lot of that's referred to, yes. Coming out of PFAL though, there's so much that's been taught over 36 hours, it's a bit of a mash up, to say the least. (I do feel there's some good mashings in there though, so sue me, but don't expect to get much in the settlement ) For those of us who'd never heard of any of that kind of stuff, my point is that PFAL was what brought it to our attention as a useful and correct way to study the bible for further knowledge and understanding. If you went with the flow, you tended to come out of it slighly hamstrung - you knew about the material from the mentions but to use them to any degree you needed PFAL as the guide to your conclusions. Basically you would use them to rework what you already knew. People would come away with "use Bullinger, but watch out! He's off in this and that". As if Bullinger was going to bite your head off or something. Some would say that's to benefit the teaching style of PFAL. I dunno. VPW presents himself as Mr. Research. Research is based on study, work, time, materials, reference, and some means of metrics, measuring. That entire system is so formalized by Bullinger and repeated in PFAL, it's just hard to get around it not being stated more clearly throughout so the listener is able to form a view for the scope of the work, moreso because PFAL was marketed as something, new, different, true. To add: this may have been VPW's problem with laying it all out. He wanted PFAL to be "his own", the result of a revelatory instruction from God. In fact, PFAL contains large parts of the work of others. I think whether someone views that as right, wrong, honest or dishonest, it can be generally accepted that's true. So how to handle - VPW said he didn't teach anything "new", he just "put it all together". If that's the reality we're dealing with there should be no problem with giving a complete open view of all the sources, everything, all the time. It's as if to say "so what? I didn't invent this stuff, but I see the pieces coming together like this..." Is that what he really did? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......in practice, I don't think so. We can assume that he was using all of this written work from others, but not usually stating where he got it. If he really felt the way he said he did, it shouldn't have mattered to him to credit sources. He really jumped ship and knowingly shot himself in the foot academically by not doing so. He either knew he'd be skewered for it someday and didn't care, or just didn't care. A little leaven would have leavened the whole loaf, in hindsight, y'know?

SNOPES and about.com's urban legends sites actually disagree with that dante, and since it's come up twice on this thread (honestly I'm sure) I feel it's right to at least post that these points have been challenged. Two main points stick out - one, he was never in the service according to these sources, and there are no gaps in his known history of education, career and family that would leave time for him to have been in the service. This quote sizes it up: After graduating from Rollins College in Florida with a degree in music in 1951, he immediately embarked on a broadcasting career -- a career that continued uninterrupted for nearly 50 years, even while he studied for a Bachelor of Divinity degree, eventually becoming an ordained minister in 1962. The site navyseals.com devotes some space to clarifying these items too. One of the reasons that it's important on the Navy Seal issue is that there seems to have been many people over the years who lie about their military past, and the Seals had for a time a "Wall of Shame" site where they listed names of people that had incidents of doing exactly that. I've never seen any quotes or statements from Fred Rogers where he speaks about or implies anything about military service. That seems to have been attributed to him by others. Sites discussing the military rumors deal with the Vietnam War, although the facts would seem to apply to WW2, if he was never in the service. I'd be interested in any information that confirms his miltary service record if he had one, though.

Thank you dooj and waysider for those video clips. Is that a piece of the one George was referring to in the Tribute - George? The way he addressed his viewers in that one clip is very personal, waysider. He knows that there are those who he's made an impact on, ("you are Mr. Rogers aren't you?") who have gotten a little or a lot from his many broadcasts and he places them at the center of his message, thanking them for what they've done and his pride in "their" efforts to help the children in their lives. TV being what it is, it's gone so quickly. His work in TV clearly lives on. I guess it's obvious, but we were all children at one time. Whether we had the opportunities he tried to offer in his way or not, I doubt many would argue that it would do a little one good to have that kind of trust and sense of hope brought to them at that age. We forget I think that when we're so small and new we have cares and fears, in the smallest of things - things that are our size. Likewise today our problems are real and sized to match our age, even bigger it seems. When life becomes like a huge ball of impossibly tangled string and yarn and we can't even see where to begin straightening it all out...we need a place to start, over, again. To even hear that we can is meaninngful. He reminds me of Jesus saying: "Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." To be the provider to a child and to help those who won't survive if not helped - what could be greater? I'm certainly glad ol' Fred did what he did, for everyone he did reach at that age where we all need it the most. That's probably why so many people respect what he did. He did it for them.

Excellent point, Oaks. He restated the incident with Dr. Higgins many times over the years and as far as I know it's correctly recorded in TWLIL. A lot of the discussion on plagiarism looks at the use of others writing, sections from their books, sentences and paragraphs that are identical or paraphrased so close to another's that the relationship between his and others is noticable. Terms, phrases, illustrations, many noted on GS posts and others too, all bear close resemblance to others writings. Bullinger's work - comparing it to a dictionary reference might not the best or most correct example, but there is a similar flavor, to me. Using a dictionary style explanation for the meaing of a word for instance implies a dictionary was used, or that the meaning of a word is so commonly understood that the "Webster's" reference isn't even cited. Words have meanings and dictionaries define them, pretty much everyone knows and accept that. So some places a person might put "From the 20XX edition of Websters/Whovever Dictionary: " The definitive meaning of a word would at least include if not start with a citing of the dictionary meaning. I'd venture to say - my opinion - that based on a comparison of VPW's use of say, figures of speech in the bible, and Bullinger's work on figures of speech, that VPW used Bullinger's figures and definitions as a reference and starting point. Some uses, like for exa. "pros" use the Bullinger nearly exact to complete VPW's definition of the word. Polysendeton is another, uses of "and". It's understandable that with VPW's education, the exposure and study at Princeton Theological, etc. that he could have been familiar with an area like figures of speech in the bible. However, of the other sources he notes for his background, there doesn't seem to be one that carries the breadth of Bullinger. Which is probably why he notes him in PFAL the way he does when he does. There's no question in my mind that Bullinger was a constant source of reference for him, in much the same way a dictionary might be. To me it would seem he recognized areas like that in biblical research and was able to use them. Bullinger's finished work on figures offered a huge reference resource to study figures in the bible and approach them in an organized way, as an area of study as well as a means to greater understanding of topics in context. In that way, there's value to citing the reference. VPW would often do this in Way Corps presentations, often noting where he agreed or differed. Bullinger seemed to be the definitiive starting or launching point, along with others, for work on a verse.

I took great joy in poking fun at Mr. Rogers over the years...Whatta sweet, caring man he was... Me too, George. He did seem to be good natured about the various reactions he got from the media, others. Once our kids watched him, it struck me (as so many others) that young kids "got him" immediately. After seeing him I realized how difficult and even scarey it must be to always be talked to by people so much bigger than you and I started kneeling or crouching down when speaking to kids. Much better on their eye level. . I loved watching it with him. That was such a point of his, :) and so many people have good memories of watching him together with their family. It didn't require much explanation or covering their kids' eyes 20 times, or ever having to say "uh...let's see what else is on". It was always appropriate for the audience. Bless his heart . He showed love to those in need of it every day and was a stable force for so many who needed the hope of a better life. Yes indeedy Pond. He mentions "trust" in that video. That's what struck me about the car theft incident - when you're in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood, a person knows it's not right to steal. :) Scintillatingly simple, the force of his love for others. It's true that the world could use a few more like him. NIKA - oh yes. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Even perusing his life and then pondering the things he did and said, watching him in action a little here and there - fills the mind with good thoughts. An hour goes by, then a few and those kind of thoughts and desires can be pushed out if not rekindled. It's worth a few minutes everyday to feed the brain on pure goodness, or as pure as we can find and in whatever form. And it's worth spreading around a little too.

Yeah, it's a pleasure to ponder his life's work. :) Guess there's a few fans here!He talks about some interesting ideas in this video, from youtube when Public Broadcasting was about to take a proposed cut. Here's the video: Here's a transcript of his testimony. (I'm not familiar with the rest of the website but found the transcript there)

Glad you enjoyed it waysider, and Paw. Worth a moment to consider his life. This story from the article caught my eye: According to a TV Guide piece on him, Fred Rogers drove a plain old Impala for years. One day, however, the car was stolen from the street near the TV station. When Rogers filed a police report, the story was picked up by every newspaper, radio and media outlet around town. Amazingly, within 48 hours the car was left in the exact spot where it was taken from, with an apology on the dashboard. It read, "If we'd known it was yours, we never would have taken it." There's different versions of that story I've read but the basic facts of it seem to be the same, of the car and the return after it was reported in the media. :) It kind of adds a new shade of meaning to the saying "good overcomes evil".