WordWolf

Yes. The cheekbones was a giveaway?

That's it.

Michael Clarke Duncan Temuera Morrison Geoffrey Rush Tim Robbins Angela Bassett -The main actor for the movie (arguably the title role) clashed with the director, and was glad the movie performed poorly. -The director wanted Bradley Cooper for the main actor, but he wasn't available. - The main actress' line about cheekbones was an ad-lib. An early version of the script included Pierce Brosnan making a brief appearance as Alan.

"I'm so hot for her, I'm so hot for her..."

"Toga! Toga! Toga!"

I apparently haven't seen this movie, but I've heard the line. This may be a chick flick. *thinks* How about "As Good As It Gets"?????

*hums for a while* "SHE'S NOT THERE."

I'd never heard of this show. *checks* 4 seasons on NBC? Well, I don't get NBC, but I tend to think most shows end up here somehow. It's apparently not true, but I tend to think it anyway.

Me too!

I wasn't 100% sure, and I wasn't 100% sure you'd accept that form of answer.

That's it. Jim Nabors starred in the spoof of "Kung Fu" - "Young Fool." The first 2 quotes were from that. The 2nd set of quotes involved a returning character, Pvt Arthur Newberry. He became a war hero when he swallowed a live hand grenade and saved his platoon, but it hollowed him out. We saw him once as a Buckingham Palace guard and when they named a ship after him. Of course, you recognized Carol singing her theme song which happened sometimes.

I've never seen the movie, but would have gotten it from "I'll have what she's having!" since that line is well-known even among people who never saw the movie.

"He hates but one man: the man who stole his shoes." "That's because there is no air in the windmills of your mind." "He swallowed a live hand grenade. He has no internal organs." "What's your favorite ice cream flavor?" "Buffalo Ripple." "I'm so glad we've had this time together..." *sung*

That's it.

Your lights are on but you're not home."

It's not "The Destroyer", by the Kinks. But I keep confusing that with "ALL DAY AND ALL OF THE NIGHT" by the Kinks.

[It looked to me like you were...going somewhere with your posts, somewhere specific and antagonistic. Since then, you've taken it down several notches, and it's obvious you're not going there. (At least not now, and "now" is all I have to go by. so, it's all good.) ]

Digiorno? No, George is probably right.

....and NOW I can finally hear the song in my head.

[In case it's not clear, Raf and I are very different people. (We've been mistaken for each other, on and off, for much of our adult lives, but we don't even live in the same country, and we disagree on some pretty fundamental things.) So, no, I wasn't using the word "original" in the manner he mentioned. (I just posted my explanation a minute ago.) I doubt he had the time to follow back and read over the post where I was going into this. "the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition for "original" (that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made)" [Merriam-Webster's definition matches what I explained a post ago.] "So the term "original" can now apply to all existing manuscripts regardless of when they were written, by whom they were written, where they were found, or how different they might be from one another. And can now include copies of copies of copies. And this has become the acceptable norm among some people in the field of biblical study. Serious question here - is this what is meant by utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills? If so, I just don't get it." [Since we can all now see clearly that none of this was the case in any post, I'm confident we can call off the witch hunt now. There was just a misunderstanding.]

"Am I missing something here? What "original" do you and Hampson think exists?" [Actually, we're using the word "original" in a much more simple manner than that. If we were discussing pfal, someone might speak of what was actually in the Orange Book or class as being "in the original", as opposed to what was later said about pfal. (One poster seemed obsessed with the differences at times.) Another poster might react angrily, because pfal was, in general, plagiarized and cobbled together from the works of other writers (Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon...), so using the word "original" in reference to pfal could result in that response. In the case of Hampson and myself, I think I can speak with confidence that it is generally accepted that, when we look at modern English Bibles, regardless of the version, that virtually all of them are taken from the Greek texts, as opposed to the Latin, the Syriac, and so on. Whenever I did a "word study" or wanted to know what was said "in the original", I went back a step. I pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear of the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text, and followed along in the Greek. I found that many problems with an English version were simply because the critical Greek Text was clear, but the English version did something that added a difficulty. So, it was an error in translation from Greek to English. So, when I'm addressing the translation into English of a modern Bible, I can compare the English version in my hand to the Greek Text from which it was translated, and refer to the Greek Text as "the original", since it was from this that the version was translated. It doesn't mean that the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text was the original text of all the writings, since obviously they proceeded from other texts- but of the translation in my hand, it was the original. I've also had a chance to read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in Spanish. I've mentioned I prefer to read it in the original. Nobody supposed I meant I had a copy of Orwell's first print run of the book. Like any word in any language, the word "original" can be used in different contexts and still be accurate- within that context. If we weren't discussing the Bible, this wouldn't even be questioned.]

I agree that the general topic Jesus was expounding on was about being "born again", which is to say being born "of the spirit", which is second because we were all born in the usual manner much earlier, and this would be the second one. The following verses make that clear. Other verses address it. The entire previous discussion was on that one verse, and what Nicodemus took away from it. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on it. I see Nicodemus as having listened with the common "selective hearing", having heard Jesus say a man had to be born (at his age) to see the kingdom of God. and Nicodemus objected to a man who is old being born, and how he couldn't repeat his first birth and leave the womb. I see Jesus as trying to impart some new, important information at the time, and Nicodemus seizing on the wrong thing. As for what "anothen" should be, having examined all the occurrences of the word, I'm convinced it should be rendered "from above" and that's it. I think that's the most sensible, consistent translation. So, we should probably agree to disagree there as well.

I wasn't primarily objecting to the tone. I was objecting to that sort of question being in this thread. I'll agree to participate in threads where we're playing nicer. You're certainly welcome to post those threads, especially in the Atheism forum. However, I'll be exercising my right to refrain from participating. I felt the tone matched the question, and I objected to both- but more to the question showing up in this particular thread. I don't mind "discussing" in "discussion" threads. I draw the line at shouting matches in contention threads. They rarely change any minds, and people just get heated. (At least, that's my current position.)

"The most concerning and obvious question in all of this is: Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being,...." [I was under the impression that this wasn't going to be one of those threads. If this is going to be one of those threads, I'll just see myself out. I came to discuss content and translation, not engage in an angry shouting match that won't convince anyone of anything and will only waste time. If this thread is going to change into one of those threads now that I am in it, I'm not sticking around.]

The camel/rope thing. Lamsa had it as "rope" in his Bible. The Aramaic Interlinear twi put out had it as "rope." Naturally, one can show suspicion on both sources, as it's possible both were, ah, compromised. But I compared the words side by side in my college library. They had a copy of the book "The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels." I eyeballed both words carefully and could not find a difference between the two. Most people can simply conclude that it was hyperbole and get the meaning, and, either way, it is still hyperbole. Neither a rope nor a camel can fit in the eye of a needle, and with man, this is impossible. That was the point regardless, although I prefer having a correct translation either way.