TrueTomHarley

Someone tweeted that the baby should also be named MVP

Sam Herd likely went through much of his life without thirty dollars to his name.

Sometimes the liars of the other side are more useful than the pig-headed ones on yours. If this is playing out per the laws of human nature, Gordon has found pretty good evidence that the pronunciation of God's name is NOT Yahweh, but that the vowels have been identified that they are consistent with Jehovah (or Adonai) - at any rate, three vowels instead of two. But much as in all matters of scholarship, the scholarship of his fellow Jews is that Yahweh is the pronunciation and they will not give it up come hell or high water. h2o) (sheol, The pig-headed ones on his side are useless. Why not use the liars on the other side? Sometimes one must take what one can get. Note of of this video's likens Yahweh to the god Jupiter. https://www.nehemiaswall.com/nehemia-gordon-name-god How valid is he? a cursory inspection reveals he is genuine. doctorate at Hebrew University? On the team of those translating the Dead Sea Scrolls.? Perhaps Beduhn regards himself in a similar boat with us.

In this particular instance, I was not challenging you. (in all other instances, I am) I was sincere in what i said. I think you are as screwy as they come, but I would never think you would deliberately misquote a scripture. I never doubted that the KJV said unicorns if you said it did. I just wanted to know where those instances were. Thanks, too, to @Space Merchant

It does fit in better with the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), translated Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, doesn't it? The vowels correspond better.

I never quite know what from you is kidding and what is real. But you are not given to making specific inaccurate statements. So...does it really say it nine times? Where?

It is true. I bask in the love here. I am scared to go anywhere else.

The trick, @AlanF, is to let someone's own words reveal that they are ill-mannered louts. You don't go around name-calling everyone you oppose. You set them up so that they torpedo themselves. But, but, but, but - what if others don't agree that this or that person is a fool? Don't I have to plainly say it? No. You don't. It is irresistible for you, I understand, maybe the sign of a very insecure person. But you don't. Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. So should you.

I admit, I don't know anything of Scholar JW's scholarship. I like him simply for his kickback at Alan. Such as: and This reveals a sense of humor on his part (I think) and it sails right past Alan because, as far as I can tell, he has NO sense of humor. But I don't really know much, or care greatly, about the topic under consideration, so it is only someone's obnoxious personality that occasionally draws me it, almost against my will. Alan is calling anyone a troll? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course! Anyone else's insults are ill-mannered insults. Only AlanF rises above the common description to reveal truth. And to my: "I'll be like Job (on this thread, more or less, with minor caveats) and bring my own lips to silence."? I feel for you, Alan. I really do. I absolutely HATE it when ones who disagree with me speak on this forum. It's just infuriating. Why do they not put their hands in their pockets and let ME speak to THEM?

Yikes! I am dealing with reawakening superheroes of long ago and in forums far away! I wasn't even online 13 years ago. I'll be like Job (on this thread, more or less, with minor caveats) and bring my own lips to silence.

I am coming to positively like @scholar JW, if for no other reason than he throws @AlanF's line by line method right back at him, and he does it minus Alan's constant insults. After all, what was it that Eric Hoffer said? "Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength." Scholar JW knows this. Why does not the other?

I begin to think this is a misquote and it is "harmful sectarian organizations" that is meant. It makes more sense from the group's point of view. it is not your mistake, you have relayed it accurately, but the reporter's.

You have put your finger on something very significant, Kurt. Thank you for posting it.

I think I heard that the Russians gave Trump a Strava and are eagerly following all his jogging paths.

I always thought it was a stupid line that "the terrorists are trying to disrupt our way of life." It never made sense to me. If anything, I figured the exact opposite was true. They DO NOT want to disrupt the way of life of those they would attack. They want them to continue to walk about as bowling pins, all the easier to knock down. Sure enough, it was only a matter of time before car dealers and the like were exhorting the public to keep carrying on as before - why if they hold back, the terrorists have won! But I never actually knew where the stupid slogan came from. Until last night. I saw The Seige movie from 1998 on TV. On a hunch, I checked out Denzel Washington's retort to the general about the terrorists winning. It was the filmmaker's line! The slogan comes from Hollywood! It is from BEFORE the pandemic of actual terrorist attacks. Not from anyone who actually knows anything! It is just a story! Who would have thought? An online movie summary includes: "[Denzel] Washington's character, FBI agent Anthony Hubbard, struggles as the fight against terrorism takes over the city. He's the first to introduce the 'terrorists have won' rhetoric."What if what they really want is for us to herd children into stadiums like we're doing and put soldiers on the street and have Americans look over their shoulders - bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit?' he asks in a furious tirade. "'We do that and everything that we have bled and fought and died for is over." Oh, sure! Motley terrorists huddled back home green with envy over the hedonistic society abroad, rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of screwing up their Constitution! Now THERE'S a cause to die for! A lot of stupid stuff originates with the 'furious tirades' of make-believe movie characters! And what does this tell us about the pundits who reiterate this wisdom? Where do they have their thinking forged? What serves for their 'sources?' Pass the popcorn, please.

sigh.....I chose long ago.

I, for one, was furious when I read of this outrage taking place right in Hollywood. My blood pressure shot to the moon. They had to call NASA. You should get on board, too.

Oh, so you approve of molestation, do you?

On another thread, I mentioned I had smashed up my Honda Fit. I have been looking at other Fits. Google found out about it and not I cannot go to a news aggregater without seeing Fits everywhere. A fine reason to buy a Chevy, as far as I am concerned.

It is DuckDuckGo that catches my interest. it is said to not skew results per what is politically correct or try to define for readers what is fake news and what is real news. Having said that, I have yet to use it. (or even remember its name, until prompted) I think now I will try it some, as a supplement.

thanks for this. It almost inspires me - maybe I will do it - to give each a try for a week

i think that if Google is perceived as too invasive, it will prompt some too check out the competition. Same thing if it is perceived as too nannylike, directing searches towards 'approved' results. To the extent Google is proprietary - attempting to lock in its suite of services and lock out the competition, it will prompt some to go elsewhere. Trouble is, most 'elsewhere' does the same.

What about Joseph's reaction after Mary told him why she was pregnant but before the angel confirmed it? 'Because Joseph was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, he intended to divorce her secretly.' It is an odd use of the word 'righteous.' You would almost expect 'good' or 'kind' but not 'righteous' Did not Paul say that hardly will anyone die for someone righteous but perhaps for a good man someone dares to die? Joseph figured she was pregnant the same way everyone else would be. You would think 'righteous' would be to do what he would do and let the chips fall where they may. If she becomes a public spectacle, she should have thought about that before. But he didn't treat her that way.. He may have thought she had a screw loose - something he had not noticed before. Or maybe she had some sort of PTSD thing from a MeToo experience.

I'll use that line on @The Librarian the next time the old hen comes around.