Raf

I tossed my copy of Jesus Christ our Passover in the trash some years ago, but I have a question regarding how TWI handled one of those pesky apparent discrepancies. In Mark 15:25, it says that Jesus was crucified at 9 a.m. In John 19:13, Pilate doesn't hand Jesus over to be crucified until noon. They can't both be right. I remember being very impressed with how JCOP handled discrepancies (although there are some arguments I no longer buy, but that's not important right now). How did JCOP handle this one? Anyone still have it?

Jump in

Oh duh. Psycho

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl First quote was a clever quip about the actual Disney ride.

Cheated to get it. Will post an answer Monday if no one really gets it before then.

Are the movies in the right order, or did you describe the second one first again? I think I've got the first one, but I'm stumped on the second.

George, because I cheated.

Very good sir.

A boy wizard learns more about potions than he ever bargained for when he stumbles upon a used textbook written by a cartoon Moses.

Eric Bana Troy Orlando Bloom

I'm here. I'm here. A boy wizard learns more about potions than he ever bargained for when he stumbles upon a used textbook written by Moses.

I say give him the credit for it, WordWolf!

The Thomas Crown Affair to Remember

Love it

You are up

Cheating permitted after a couple of days. This was a recent Best Picture Oscar nominee. Not a blockbuster, but hardly obscure by definition.

SIT and TIP are by inspiration, not by revelation. I love how VPW can invent distinctions out of whole cloth and have people parrot that opinion as gospel decades after he lost the ability to con anyone out of another dime.

Please do a word study on firmament. Please show what that word means throughout scripture: empty space, or a solid structure? Please tell me, based on genuine historical research, what that word meant to the audience that originally read it. What did it mean to the first century church? Please show me any indication that Biblical Israel or the early Christian church was aware of the vastness of outer space. You won't find it. Science, not scripture, gave us this knowledge. P.S. You keep saying things along the lines of accusing me of sounding like a natural man, etc. I would appreciate it if you would cut the bs. If you're going to challenge my points, challenge them. This ad hominem nonsense is beneath you. Challenge the merits of what I'm saying, with facts instead of opinion. Saying it sounds like what a natural man would say dodges the issue of whether a natural man is approaching the subject matter with more intellectual honesty than you. I contend that on this issue, he is.

You can deny it all you'd like. You're flat out wrong, but go ahead. The truth needs no defense, remember? You can pretend the Bible says what you claim it does, but it doesn't. You can call me a natural man, but only one of us is letting the Bible speak for itself on this matter, and it's not you.

The second version of the clue contains a simple restating of the title of the first moving, using other words. Deafening Sound and unbelievable proximity... encounters of the third kind. :)

Terms of Endearment Jack Nicholson The Witches of Eastwick

The sounds are deafening. The action took place so near to me that I could touch it. And it culminated at Devil's Tower.

Can I respect that response and the heart behind it while noting that it doesn't really answer the question? I respect it primarily because "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" is an honest response. On SIT, you and I differ in our opinion as to what the evidence shows so far and what we anticipate further evidence will show or even CAN show. That doesn't quite apply here. John draws a very clear line in the sand, and I've attempted to question just how clear that line is. It sounds like a no-brainer on the surface, but when you look at what we've learned so far about the world and the universe, certain things in the Bible can no longer be taken literally or at face value. The firmament, an undeniably solid object, HAS to be God giving a great big "no comment" about the nature of the sky [considering the irrelevance of that subject to the overall story arc of scripture] or the Bible is wrong. So we allow that there are things stated as fact in the Bible that are not actually true in scientific terms, because those "facts" are irrelevant to the Bible's overall tale. My question remains unanswered, which is fine and acceptable, until one starts drawing lines and saying worldly wisdom MUST be rejected if it conflicts with the Bible. The history of Christianity does not live up to that standard. We have allowed our understanding to grow and approached the Bible differently because of that understanding (what we deride as world wisdom). If there's a line, at what Biblical teaching do we draw it? The order of the cosmos? Nope. Homosexuality and evolution? Many will say yep. So the line is somewhere between those two extremes. But does anyone have the arrogance to declare exactly where that line is? Is anyone even capable of such an achievement?

I actually know this without looking it up. Sad, eh? I'll give someone else a chance, though.

I guess what I'm saying is, in previous areas of scientific advancement, when science has conflicted with the understanding of the Bible at the time, it's the understanding of the Bible that gave way, not the science [eg, the firmament became the expanse, despite the absence of a shred of evidence justifying the latter translation]. Yet John comes here and says when "worldly wisdom" conflicts with the Bible, we should jettison worldly wisdom in favor of the scriptures. He cites two examples that are entirely scientific in nature: evolution and homosexuality. On evolution, the vast majority of biologists and scientists stand squarely against Genesis. Homosexuality as an area of scientific investigation appears headed in the same direction (that is, the consensus of science is that this is not a choice or rebellion but an orientation that is very much natural). If we are to conclude that science is wrong about evolution and homosexuality, and the Bible is right, I am asking what standard we apply when deciding when to alter our understanding of the scripture, as we NO DOUBT have done many times in the past, and when to hold firm in the face scientific consensus to the contrary. What's the line? Is there one? Or are these two examples obvious in a way that the issues raised earlier were not?