Raf

You guys seriously need a diaper change. No, I am not simply repeating that the flood never happened. Multiple protestations were brought up, examined and discarded as factually without basis. To suggest that the Biblical flood happened because it might be referring to a different flood that is not described in the Bible is your prerogative, but it's kind of like saying Spider-Man really happened because spider bites happen. I do not have the burden of reviewing every spider bite to disprove that it is the origin of the Spider-Man story. You are under the obligation to find the one that resulted in Spider-Man. More to the point, it's like saying a particular man raped a particular woman because there have been cases of men raping women. Yes, there have been cases. Many cases. But that doesn't make each allegation something that "actually happened" just because other cases did. [Note to other mods: this is not even REMOTELY about politics]. If I concoct a fictional rape for a fictional story, the fact that there were non-fictional rapes in my community, in my state or in my country does not confer a benefit of the doubt on the fictional rape I concocted so that you must assume it really happened unless someone demonstrates otherwise. Likewise, I am not obliged to examine every regional flood to discover the origin of the Bible's fictional story. You have the burden of finding a flood that matches the description in the Bible. You won't find one. There was a very good attempt, but it fell short on the facts (it did not cover anything that could even remotely be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat"). The fact that other cultures had flood stories centuries before Genesis was written only proves that the author of Genesis borrowed the story -- not that the flood of Genesis actually happened. It actually weighs AGAINST the notion that the Genesis flood actually happened. So if you don't mind, we're now at Abraham and for some reason you insist on going back to the Flood that never happened, and at this point in the discussion it is derailing.

That would make some sense if Genesis were written centuries after it was alleged to have been written. That's a problem for authenticity, though. The flood never took place. We've been over that ad nauseum, and simply declaring it to be my supposition doesn't make it so. It is a documentable fact that there was never a worldwide flood, and it is a documentable fact that there was never any regional flood of sufficient size and impact to match the description in Genesis. There most certainly were regional floods, but nothing that would have carried the ark to the mountains of Ararat. If you have evidence of extreme hyperbaric conditions that existed after the flood resulting in 300-year lifespans in that region of the world between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, please present that evidence. Until then, you are throwing crap at this thread to see what sticks, and it's getting annoying. Evidence, or shut up already.

Genesis 11 We've already gone over the fact that diversity in human language long preceded the fictional account of the Tower of Babel. I mean, you only need to read the previous chapter to realize that there was already more than one language. Human languages did not originate in one place (Iraq?) at one time. They developed regionally, like their religions. We go from this fictional story to the progeny of Shem, one of Noah's kids. It should be noted that we're now focusing on a particular line out of Shem, unlike the cursory list in the previous chapter. Turns out Shem was 98 years old at the time of the flood. That means Noah was about 498 years old when Shem was born. Assuming the flood came 120 years after Noah was first warned about it, it seems rather interesting. It means the ark construction was underway 18 years before Shem was BORN. Add at least, what, 12 years to get him involved in the construction? So Noah is at it by himself for 30 years before Shem can be expected to start helping out. I don't think we get Ham or Japeth's ages. I wonder if they had different mothers. Difficult to tell, as the Bible mentions nothing about the women in this story. Almost like they didn't exist matter. Ok, so Shem lives 500 years after becoming a dad, for a total of 600 years. This is fantasy. This is not a real story being told about people who really lived. Anyway, fast forward: All these people live ridiculously long lives until finally, Terah, s spring chicken at the age of 70, has a son named Abram. Who is Abram's mother? Who cares? Abram's brother Haran, Lot's father, dies in the land of his birth, Ur of the Chaldeans. It's a fascinating reference, because the Chaldeans did not occupy Ur until about 800 B.C. Which means this story wasn't passed down from generation to generation. And more to the point, this story was not written by Moses. This story was written centuries after Moses, had he existed at all (spoiler alert: he didn't) would have lived and died. Now, is it possible that Abram was born in the land that many centuries later became known as Ur of the Chaldeans. Sure. To a 70-year-old dad? Sure. [True story: U.S. President John Tyler has two grandsons who are still alive as of this writing. He was very old when he had a child, and that son was very old when he had his children]. And Abram's grandfather lived to the age of 148? Umm.... we're starting to get a little far-fetched here. And Abram's great-grandfather lived to be 230 years old? Aw, come on! Anyways, here we go: A woman's name suddenly matters: Abram is married to Sarai. Abram's brother, Nahor, is married to Milkah, whose father was Haran. Did you follow that? Ok, let me make it blunt: Abram's brother married his own niece. Ew! Ok, it was another time. I know objective morality is not dependent on circumstances, but still. Ok, so the guy marries his own niece. At least Abram didn't do that. That would be sick. Terah, Abram's father, dies at the age of 205. That's years. Yuhright.

America on stage is sung by two different groups of Puerto Rican women, and the island is disparaged for a lot of it. For the movie,someone realized the Puerto Rican men had no song of their own, so they were given tye PR loving half of America as well as some truly biting lyrics

Finnegan became inpressed by Anthony Buzzard, never been way, which is the source of my comment. I am not aware of any other non-x-way connections with Finnegan. Buzzard's exposition against the Trinity put Wierwille's to shame. It also heavily influenced the One God/One Lord book by CES. Buzzard is likely responsible for Finnegan's eventual position that salvation can be recanted/revoked/lost or whatever you want to put as the word there. Buzzard's influence on me? The notion that The Word of God is not The Bible. Sharp fellow. I do not know if he still lives. He was a muckety muck with the Worldwide Church of God back when.

The overture lasts between four and five minutes. it features a screen that changes colors, with a pattern that, at the end, shows itself to be a representation of the southern tip of Manhattan. For those paying attention: that's not the West Side. West Side Story was directed by Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, who shared the Best Director Oscar. Robbins never directed another movie. Wise went on to direct The Sound of Music, a musical about a woman named Maria. He also went on to direct Star Trek: The Motionless Picture, another movie in which long stretches of time pass with no actionor plot development. But I digress. George Chakiris and Natalie Wood, not Puerto Rican, were made up to look a little browner than mother nature granted them. Rita Moreno, who is Puerto Rican, was made up a shade or two to match them.

So in case ANYONE was wondering, the movie IS....?

my clues were FINE until you guessed the wrong musical!

i hate you

Neon is not a clue. Major neon sign only refers to how obvious the clue us. Four years after directing this movie, one of the directors went on to make The Sound of Music, which I did not identify by name. I identified it as A MUSICAL WHOSE LEAD FEMALE CHARACTER IS NAMED MARIA. Do You Need Flashcards?!?!

omg The name of the movie has been mentioned twice.

A black screen is incorrect, as noted. MUSIC IS CORRECT AND A MAJOR HINT. Four years later, one of the directors went on to direc A MUSICAL WHOSE LEAD FEMALE CHARACTER IS NAMED MARIA. Tha movie, correctly identified, is The Sound of Music. The clue is pointless if it is not a major neon sign hint. So what do we have: A movie whose opening minutes are nothing but a screen with a pattern, changing colors, with MUSIC in the background. Directed by a man who four years later DIRECTED A MUSICAL WHOSE LEAD FEMALE CHARACTER IS NAMED MARIA, which is The Sound of Music. (So what, unless... OH!!!!) And it features white actors 0laying characters who are non.... OH!!!! And the answer has already been given, once by Raf, which means... OH!!!! Duh!!!!!

Well, second time. I knew.

OMFG, will someone post the answer for a third time, realizing for the first time that it's the answer?

You guys are messing with me, right. I already gave you the answer! And I'm not the only one.

No. The facepalm when you figure it out is going to be epic. You already know the answer.

the screen is several colors -- one at a time -- for the first few minutes. It would be correct to call it the opening, but not the opening sequence. Because a sequence implies events. Nothing happens. There is a pattern on the screen during the opening, but you really cannot tell what it is until the title appears. Oddly enough, the pattern, once you realize what it is, has nothing to do with the title. By the way, I would give away the answer, but at this point that would be redundant.

Damn but he's so close. Never said the screen was black. And you misidentified the four-years-later musical. The musical from four years later was NOT West Side Story.

Is that your observation of the New York splinter? Because I see them opening their minds to people who left TWI before, people who left after, and people who have never been associated with New Knoxville. Conceivable we're both right in part, but I won't pretend to know what the totality of the circumstances would show.

When we left in 1989, the majority of NYers had a simple position: Changing the presidency of TWI would no longer be considered a solution because anyone who replaced LCM from within at that point would have been someone who bent the knee -- someone who chose LCM over JC. It's an interesting take that allowed us to exclude from serious consideration anyone who did not leave at the same time we did (Dubofsky, Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser and others all left too soon. Everyone else, too late. My observation is that this temporary isolationism softened as the years passed. But at the time, it was an interesting dynamic

A one-dimensional approach (yours) to a multidimensional problem (actual errors in Genesis) does not get to be called complex by virtue of your declaration. There is nothing "three dimensional" about your approach, nor is there anything "two-dimensional" about the issues being raised here. One needs to look beyond the surface to recognize the inherent flaws in the absurd story told by Genesis. To pretend that your view is the one with depth is an insult to thinking people. Bolshevik: Sarah would have been in her 60s or 70s at the time of the incidents described. We haven't gotten there yet. But we will, assuming Conductor ThreadDerail doesn't insist on baffline us with more of his bulls hit as we progress down the tracks.

Gone With the Wind had one director. This movie had two.

one of my hints, by the way, is a great big neon sign giveaway hiding in plain sight.

Winner of 11 oscars. A great movie. But it is not this one.

To date, 3 movies have won more than 10 Oscars. 4 movies have won 9. This is the only movie to win exactly 10. Make up was used to get some of the actors to match the complexion of the ethnicity they were playing. And make up was used to get one actress to match the altered complexion of her co-stars, even though she actually WAS the ethnicity they were playing.