WordWolf

The Doctrinal forum is where we discuss "what God's true position is" on things. Feel free to post your doctrines there.

Is there anyone out there who would actually want to BUY the land, who has that kind of money? You can only sell if there is a buyer.....

We interpret the information differently. It's not expressly stated, AFAIK, but the implications are they DID, in their 7th year, when they were Head Boy and Head Girl. I'd have to reread Book 5, when Sirius described how James' head finally deflated to know. I'll reread it eventually. I expect he knew as a result of the incident where James saved his life-mentioned in Book 3. Good point about what Wormtail knew, the Death Eaters knew. It's come up when discussing the reference to "the Animagus Black" in the fight between the OotP and the DEs in Book 5. We agree it was a dig-I just think that there's a difference between"Snape loathed James and took it out on Harry" and "Snape sure was a real a-hole." I think this specific incident moves him into the second category. The common thinking is Ted Tonks, the muggleborn, will do it, since he's still alive. The running gag is that the kid will be a werewolf with hair that changes colour all the time. So, what do you think of the connection between the doe and Lily Potter? What is the connection? And what should Snape's response to it be?

I know it would begin with the traditional "Rise up o men of God...."

Now then, what COULD be meant? Obviously, Jesus did not fast AT THAT MOMENT when casting the demon out. Fasting is an activity that takes time. Therefore, if Jesus fasted in relation to this instance, it was long before it. IF Jesus meant prayer and fasting was needed for casting out demons of this difficulty, he meant that one had to pray and fast some previous time, probably REGULARLY. Why would this be relevant? Judging from the Acts accounts, there's a certain amount of discipline in connection with prayer and fasting. This would appear to affect the "punch" of his effectiveness. At least, that's what he's saying here. A more fundamental question, however, is- did Jesus say this at all? I've been looking over different responses to this question, raised by myself and by others. The responses seem to fall into 2 camps. (If I wanted, there would be 3 camps, with the 3rd saying "the Bible is all wrong, don't bother to be a Christian." I'm skipping that in general but including it in the interest of completeness.) Camp 1 says "These verses have been used for centuries, and many manuscripts use them." Personally, I detect a distinct scent of "how dare you question the traditional versions!" in them. A fine example of that is here: http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/13/thiede.html In admitting that 2 of the main codexes show this missing (Mark 9:29), the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, it still insists that "well, Tyndale didn't include it centuries ago, and that's just fine with us." In the latter 1/2 of the 20th century, a large number of parchments have shed light on textual problems that were impenetrable centuries ago, and most of the ones I've seen were the result of ADDED verses. In this page, the arguer ended by saying that some texts obviously DELETED verses, but that's far, far, FAR less common than ADDING verses. Occasionally, a translator meant well and added something-either from another gospel, or to add a dramatic and "appropriate" flourish, but rarely did a translator just remove a verse. Statistically, that alone would get me suspicious. A number of us are familiar with the fact that LATER works on original texts get progressively more accurate, as more documents are compared, and translators get closer and closer to the original texts in their own attempts to overcome Zeno's Paradox. (I'm highly in favour of this effort, of course.) That's why even the KJV has been tweaked over the centuries, and versions from the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century are held as more accurate than versions from before the 20th century. (Unless you're of the camp that your denomination has THE version, in which case whatever year that one was made is THE year.) The International Bible Society- which is a legitimate organization that's been around for a while- said this about BOTH verses: http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/4.php "In the NIV, Matthew 17:21 (kjv) is entirely missing. Why? To answer that question we should first turn to Mark 9:29. There Jesus is reported as saying to his disciples: “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting” (kjv). I once heard a godly missionary say, “If you don’t get the answer to your prayer, then fast, and God will have to answer your petition.” But that is magic—manipulating God—not true religion. The fact is that “and fasting” is not found in our two fourth-century manuscripts (cf.niv). It apparently was added in the fifth century, when much emphasis was being given to Gnostic asceticism and to monasticism. Then the whole of Mark 9:29 was inserted in Matthew. But Matthew 17:21 is not found in our two earliest manuscripts, as well as in the best ninth-century codex. At best it is doubtful whether these words are genuine, and so they should not be emphasized." Up this thread, theInvisibleDan gave a specific reference for this same point. Now, I'm aware that some people are quite reactionary when someone approaches the idea that THEIR version might have an incorrect verse that was inserted long ago. Often, the response is how the student doesn't like the Bible, or doesn't like the verse and doesn't respect the Bible enough to treat it honestly when faced with inconvenient truths. To that, I'll quote the end of the page on that IBS link. "All these facts that we have been rehearsing may seem rather disconcerting to the average reader. But, as we noted before, with thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament now at our disposal, we can reach a high degree of certainty with regard to the probability of the best text. It should be added that comparative statistical studies indicate that all Greek manuscripts are in essential agreement on at least 95 percent of the New Testament text. Significant differences exist, then, in less than 5 percent of the total text. And it must be said emphatically that none of these variant readings poses any problem as to the basic doctrines of the Bible. They are intact! We should like to add that all the members of the Committee on Bible Translation are devout Evangelicals, believing in the infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word. We have all sought earnestly to represent as accurately as possible what seems to be, as nearly as we can determine, the original text of the New Testament." Therefore, pending some compelling textual proof, I find it highly unlikely that the original texts had EITHER verse, and any doctrine based ENTIRELY on them is NOT based on The Word of God as given by God. Therefore, the difficulty of casting out demonaics being overcome by fasting, in and of itself, that's something man invented. The discipline of prayer-and of fasting- certainly would do no harm to the praying Christian, and may well help. However, our Lord did not himself state fasting was necessary when casting out demons. Again, fasting-when done carefully- is not a bad thing, and there are verses showing it is of use- just not THIS use.

Now then, what about the specific verses we are talking about? KJV Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. KJV Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. This is anomalous in Scripture. Fasting and prayer are steady, ongoing activities. In these 2 instances-and ONLY these 2 instances- are they connected with an instant activity. Someone needs deliverance from a demon, and Jesus commands the demon to leave, and it leaves. KJV Matthew 17:14-21. "14And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." KJV Mark 9:14-29 "14And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. 15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. 16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them? 17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; 18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. 19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. 20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. 21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. 22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. 23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. 24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. 25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. 26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. 27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose. 28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? 29And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting." ===== What literally happened in the verses? Judging from the verses preceeding and following, they describe the same incident. We know (Matthew 10:1) that the 12, at least, had authority to cast out demons. In this PARTICULAR case, they tried to, and were unable to. We know this was an extreme case- the boy was unable to speak, and tried to kill himself when he was under demonic influence. This looks like full-blown possession, where the boy was unable to make any choices during the incidents. This oppressed him for a number of years (since he was a child). Jesus is very matter-of-fact about this, and seems to be frustrated his disciples didn't cast him out. The boy had some sort of seizure or attack when he was brought to Jesus. There's an interesting comment, which sounds like Jesus is instructing the boy's father, then cuts it short when the crowd begins approaching. Jesus commands the demon to exit the boy, and to never return to him. The results are dramatic and instant- the demon leaves within seconds, trying not to, apparently. Immediately after that, the boy collapses. There's no lengthy ceremony, no ritual, no somatic or material components. An instant of "zap" and whammo! the demon is dragged out reluctantly. The disciples ask how he could do that, when their best efforts didn't bring results. His reply is the verse under contention, in each case.....

Ok, having reviewed all the evidence I have convenient access to, I'm prepared to state what conclusions I have at this time, pending any new information overriding current considerations. Forgive me for rambling- this doesn't warrant a bland statement "and this is what it is." ========= Concerning the usage of fasting at the time of Jesus, indisputably, it was done. Jesus said that hypocrites made sure others knew they were fasting, as a display of how pious they were. Matthew 6:16-18 16" Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17"But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face 18so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." So, we know some people fasted, for whatever reason. We also know the disciples(students) of John the Baptist fasted. Mark 2:18-19 "18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" 19And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast." I believe it's safe to say their motives were good. (Matthew 9:14 makes the same point.) After Pentecost, the disciples of Jesus fasted. Acts 13:2-3. " 2While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 14:23. "23When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." Jesus himself fasted, we also know. Matthew 4:2. "2And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry." The same incident is described in Luke 4:2 as well. Obviously, if Jesus did it, the reasons were sound. What the SPECIFIC reasons were at the time would need to be determined, however. An argument can be made that he fasted regularly- but it's not in Scripture. An argument can be made that he only fasted rarely- which is why it's not in Scripture. If he did NOT fast, it's not in Scripture because he didn't do it. Same, say, as the verses that don't exist where he didn't smoke cigarettes. He didn't do it, so there's no verses addressing it. If he DID fast, and there are no regular references to it, then the regular fasting was not critical to the Gospel accounts. The disciples seem to have fasted at specific times, when praying for a specific purpose, and each occurrence was with prayer. (Luke 2:36-38 and I Corinthians 7:5 seem to make the same case.) I conclude the following, so far: Fasting was not considered critical by Jesus for the everyday walk of the Christian. He DID, however, consider it important at specific times, and criticized those who fasted only to use it as a display of their supposed piety. The disciples did fast, and when they did, there were specific purposes, and in each they prayed during their fast, each of which was before action taken. Was it specifically to focus for revelation, or was it for the efficacy of the prayer at the time? Uncertain from the verses. As for the specific verses we're asking about...

Nice program. For my purposes, though, the GIMP is more than sufficient. http://gimp.org/

Let's see... 70-something-year-old man takes the hand of a woman in her 30s, "placed it on his pants where an erection was". (Says "Ain't had one of these in 20 years.") Johniam calls that "beautiful" I call it INAPPROPRIATE and OPPORTUNISTIC and WRONG. Would it have been JUST as "beautiful" if he'd demonstrated it was there by opening his pants and whipping it out? By this kind of thinking, that's just fine too. Most of us (possibly John, as well) would say "That's wrong no matter what! There's no place and time that this would be appropriate to do to her!" But it's fundamentally the same issue as what was "beautiful" as explained by John. A man took the hand of a woman not his wife (and, presumably, not even in some sort of similar intimate relationship of fornication), and placed it on his pants over his erect penis. No matter WHAT he said after that, before that, or during that, it's WRONG. (Apparently in public, too- since John knew it happened.) However, that which is wrong, inappropriate, lewd or lascivious is EXCUSED in a twi atmosphere if it's endorsed. There, being appropriate in conduct is wrong, it's prudish, it's "teaching the human body is evil", and doing things all other Christians everywhere would call inappropriate, lewd or lascivious is "BEAUTIFUL." Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! That's what we were told, which is why parents and CHILDREN took this class.However, the claims don't match up- neither to the exaggerations of what was taught to kids AND ADULTS outside of twi- nor to what other Christians learned in other formats- nor in what was taught in the CFS. This is the kind of dysfunctional "black and white" thinking that characterizes the damaged processes inside of places like twi. "Either it's ok to show porn to teens, or you're teaching that the human body is evil!!!!!111111!!!" How about there being some APPROACHES that are good, and some APPROACHES that are not? Outside of twi and ex-twi, this is NOT hard to see. At certain ages, some things can be taught. At the same ages, some things should NOT be taught. === Since we're discussing vpw, perversion and what's "beautiful", one of our posters was in the corps and sat through when vpw HIMSELF was going into detail concerning some imaginary African tribe where the fathers teach the pre-teen daughters about sex, and went into some specifics about something they did which involved putting their hands on their daughters. (No I'm not retyping it.) vpw called THAT "beautiful" after bringing it up. Still consider that "educational" as well, or do you think it was inappropriate to discuss that with the corps at all? Was it "beautiful" that some fathers of vpw's invention put their hands on their preteen daughters to teach then about sex? vpw said it was so- is claiming otherwise "thinking evil?"

O RLY? Actually, I just picked up "the Dawkins Delusion" by Alister Mc Grath and Jonanna Collicutt Mc Grath. It's got some wheels spinning.

In fairness, I do agree with some of what you said without qualification. My thinking is, if twi's reality matched its claims, we wouldn't be here sharing behind-the-scenes stories. We'd be here, still in, largely agreeing with doctrine and policies. (Most of us-I imagine some would have moved on regardless, and there would be some faces we don't have now as well.) I think that sharing the ugly truths about twi is necessary, albeit somewhat distasteful. Growing PAST twi is a goal for almost everyone here.(The rest want to replicate their twi experience, and since they are adults, they're entitled to try even if I disagree strongly.) As a Christian, I believe some of what was taught- and some of what was practiced, both locally and corporately- was on the mark. As a Christian, I believe some of it was not- and both practice and doctrine in some cases made the entire experience harmful. Not for nothing were we warned "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (I Corinthians 5 AND Galatians 5.) God wanted to let us know that perfectly godly stuff-with a small amount of adulteration- can be degraded so it's no longer what He wanted. (If one is to believe I Corinthians 5 and Galatians 5, anyway- I've seen someone argue against it while claiming they believe the whole Bible.) I say the same. That's largely why I'm here.(My time on the game threads notwithstanding.) Still growing and still alive, hey, that's fine. You've gotten farther than some people-not that we're in a race or anything... Those of us still Christians, we all say that. One organization that shrank into obscurity inside of 50 years, that's an eyeblink in God's story.

Ha! I clicked on the link using Anonymouser, and I got vague results and the wrong IP. (I clicked on it normally a minute before, and all my usual info came up.)

Nobody said the sole-or even most likely purpose- for a 50-year-old to show teens and early 20s videos of young women having sex with animals was specifically to PROMOTE BESTIALITY. However, pretending the only choices are "he was trying to get people into bestiality" and "he had some other purpose, which was noble" makes it a lot easier to pretend that there WERE sane reasons to show bestiality pornographic videos to young people.

Isn't it a terrible shame that what you were sold wasn't the reality? You're still a Christian, you're still the person you were- only moreso. You're no longer shackled to THEIR version of anything, no longer limited to THEIR limitations.

It was VERY convenient- for the MOG, of course.

Man, I wish we ALL had been in the twi you two were in. It sounds like such a great place. I mean, I was spared all the REAL damage, and it still sounds like the twi I was in sucked eggs compared to the one you guys were in.

Then again, there WERE events every once in a while that "shook people out of the magnolias", crystallizing what they'd already been seeing, or that got their attention so they started looking around, and in each case, led to exits from twi one way or another. twi had its first surge of membership at the end of the 60s, when the hippies were hijacked. Some of them left when around 73- the "no rules and lots of God's love" of the Jesus People was kicked out in favour of twi-endorsed and twi-trained leaders. After 1976, I expect there was a mini-burp as well. The Watchtower Society ("Jehovah's Witnesses") has learned through their own history that the end-of-the-world-crisis means LOTS of people join up as the apocalypse approaches- and then LOTS of people leave as it passes and the world is still here. twi in 1976 had their first (AFAIK) end-of-the-world-crisis, so I expect they had the same thing happen in 1977, where some people walked out. In 1979, twi was at its apex, member-size-wise. It was also around the time there were enough corps (twi-trained leaders) to spare to run all the territories, placing them at the top from the trunk, region, limb, and territory levels. (Which meant the branch coordinators best cooperate...) In the early 1980s, vpw put lcm- who was poorly-trained and poorly-educated for the task- in charge of twi, from being in charge of the corps (which he was poorly-trained and poorly-educated for as well.) The rules and regulations multiplied, and this came to a head in 1985. In 1985, vpw died, which shocked some people expecting Jesus to return in his lifetime, and cg wrote the pop paper, which was then read to large numbers of them, and the top leadership rolled over. (For those who never read it, it's in its entirety here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydal...-patriarch.html ) In 1989, lcm drew his line in the sand, and demanded an oath of loyalty from all leaders, and fired all the ones that refused to do exactly that. ("I respect you but my sworn loyalty is to God and your demand is unScriptural" meant "you're fired".) In 1994, lcm cancelled the ROA, and finished making his draconian corps measures the standard for all of twi. In 1999-2000, twi admitted in court that they knew about lcm using his office to have sex with women. Each of those seems to have resulted in posters here saying "That's when I got fed up, realized things were not going to get better, and left twi." (I'm not so certain about 1977.)

Within a cycle of 3-5 years (for some people, less) interactions in twi degraded drastically.. Stage 1: Honeymoon stage. Everyone loves you, you are precious in God's sight, and therefore in twi's sight. The classes will explain everything once you take them. Stage 2:Sunset stage. You're loved, but there's expectations of performance-with social sanctions in place for conformity. The classes you took answered a few questions, but your REAL questions will be answered further up- in the Advanced class, or once you enter the wow program (you'll see it in action) or it's reserved for the corps. Since you're expected to know better, the "everyone loves you" thing has faded, unless of course it's from family members in the way (and even then there are no guarantees....) Stage 3:Hard lessons stage. Reality has kicked in. The classes offered more questions than answers- even if specific answers were claimed to be in classes. You're expected to be a top performer, so you don't "feel the love" unless you're performing- witnessing, and otherwise spouting the company line at the drop of a hat. You have SOME answers, but not all the important ones, and you wonder where the love went. (Unless of course you have family members in the way-which is still no guarantee...) You've now seen things at twi locations, and found some never matched the hype. However, speaking of that incurs social sanctions (you're "speaking negatives" and so on), since inconvenient truths are never to be spoken of in twi. Unofficial (and sometimes designated) thought police will clamp down ruthlessly on any dissent they find. The organization you saw in Stage 1 in no way resembles the organization you saw in Stage 3. Responses to Stage 3 vary, and can include convincing yourself that what you saw was all incorrect and twi doctrine WAS correct, and can also include getting fed up and leaving. That's why there were cycles of people leaving- there were cycles of people ENTERING. When they reached Stage 3- or Stage 3 reached them like in the pop letter being read, or lcm drawing his line in the sand in 89- they often left. Most of them complained the organization was a lot worse than a few years ago, when they arrived. In some cases, that was true- but usually, it just meant they knew a LOT more about things than they once did. =========== Then again, from 1969-1973, things DID change. In 1969-1970, the rank-and-file were the Jesus People and the Groovy Christians, whom H33fn3r and D00p spoke Christ to, and they responded in a major way. Around 1973 was when vpw kicked out H33fn3r and D00p, and declared all the local money and local loyalty were to be shipped entirely to hq. (This is when he finished "hijacking the hippies.") So, rules and regulations DID suddenly replace God's love and no earthly regulations. Often, in other timeframes, that was secondary to the PERCEPTION of that changing.

It's not so much "backpedaling" as "reinterpreting things so you weren't REALLY wrong, or saying the false prophecy "prevented itself from coming true." vpw was fond of the latter. It was the believing of twi people that saved the US in 1976. (Amazingly, we're still hearing that from some posters, so this tactic WORKS.) On the other hand, if it was some sort of psychic, vpw was vocal about them being a FALSE PROPHET if what they said didn't come to pass. At ROA '79, he made a big deal about some supposed predictions made for the first 1/2 of 1979, where someone predicted a major earthquake "in some city-I think it was Oklahoma City." He used BOTH answers to their failure to predict. He said he wished he had contact information for the person who made that prediction. "I'd let them know we have some people called The Way in that state and city and county.... *pause for applause* then I'd take them to that place in Deuteronomy that says that if a prophet says something and it doesn't come to pass, then they are FALSE PROPHETS." For those of you wondering, he was talking about Deuteronomy 18:20-22. (KJV) "20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (NASB) " 20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

A handful of wayfers have reported they knew. They were either right on grounds, or in direct contact with people on grounds, or had rare coordinators who believed in full disclosure. The overwhelming majority of posters-including myself- were all told that he "got tired of the fight", or "stopped believing", as if either was something that's written on a death certificate.

BINGO.

Can this be the Mr Magoo Christmas Carol? :blink:

Through the Advanced class, there was no WIDESPREAD teaching of anything other than life being what was between "first breath" and "last breath"- which itself was straight out of pfal Foundational. If someone somewhere said otherwise, that's interesting, but that means little when the entire organization was expected to spit back the pfal answers to anything. If you wanted to even TAKE the Advanced class, you needed to be able to regurgitate sufficient amounts of the pfal class. I'm sure there were a FEW people who saw this interesting article, but overwrite the answer from the pfal class? Sorry, I was IN twi once, and that NEVER happened, and was suppressed if it was suggested with anything.

So, Larry.... What WAS the relevance of bringing the late Mrs W into the discussion about the legitimacy of vpw? I presume you meant to add to the discussion by bringing her up, but I missed the relevance. For the benefit of those of us who did, please explain it outright.

Ok, if we're being specific, this is "Scrooge", and if I have to go with a version, I'll say the one with Alastair Sims.