Jamie123

Members
  • Content Count

    1913
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to Scott in Balaam   
    The Torah and Old Testament does say that Balaam enticed the Israelites to sin.  It is in Numbers 31:16:
    They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord.   טזהֵ֣ן הֵ֜נָּה הָי֨וּ לִבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בִּדְבַ֣ר בִּלְעָ֔ם לִמְסָר־מַ֥עַל בַּֽיהֹוָ֖ה עַל־דְּבַ֣ר פְּע֑וֹר וַתְּהִ֥י הַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה בַּֽעֲדַ֥ת יְהֹוָֽה: Old Testament KJV:

    16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
    If you look up the matter of Peor, it is in previous chapters:
    Numbers 25:1-5: 

    1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
    2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
    3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.
    4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.
    5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.
    So according to the OT and Torah (in chapter 31), it was Balaam who enticed the Israelites into worshipping Baal-peor, which led to a plague and the execution (of note, "hanging" in the OT was done by crucifixtion [the Romans weren't the first to do this] or impaling, not by rope) of many Isralites.  
    In addition to the OT and Torah, the Tamud says specifically that Balaam was wicked.
  2. Okay
    Jamie123 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Modern Secret Combinations   
    Well, as someone who grew up watching Thunderbirds, I can tell you exactly what the deal with those pens is...
     
  3. Thanks
    Jamie123 reacted to mordorbund in Balaam   
    The Torah says Balaam was slain in battle (Numbers 31). Verse 16 says what the offense was (although Balaam did not curse Israel, off-screen he advised Balak that the Lord's favor only works on principles of righteousness, so all blessings can be negated if they succumb to temptation - so feel free to tempt). As for the reference in Jude, it's not suggesting that Balaam (or Cain for that matter) died with Korah. It's saying that all 3 are guilty of the same sin of rebellion wrapped in righteousness. The 3 examples are used as a progression. Cain rebelled, Balaam compounded the error by profiting off of it, but (as with Korah) God will destroy them (can't use Balaam as the example unless Jude wants the church accused of assigning members to be "avenging angels" (danites) since he was killed by Israelite soldiers).
  4. Thanks
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Anddenex in Balaam   
    OK - First of all I'm not going to say anything about whether or not the donkey actually talked. That question's been done to death elsewhere, and if we concentrate on that we're bound to miss something else important.
    What bothers me more is whether he was a good man or a bad man, or somewhere in between, and what we can base that information on.
    Wikipedia has this to say about him:
    Notice that all three references here are to the NT: where in the Torah is he identified as "wicked"?
    OK: 2 Peter 2:15:
    Jude 1:11
    Revelation 2:14
    The first of these is very general, and can easily be squared with the OT story: it could simply refer to the fact that Balaam responded to Balak's offer of a reward. He refused to do anything that God forbade, but he was nevertheless motivated to use his prophetic powers for financial gain. He acted cautiously, but his heart was still in the wrong place.
    The second is similar but a bit more specific, in that here Balaam dies in Kora's rebellion. That is not mentioned in the original story, which ends with Balaam's departure. So where did the idea come from? It seems unlikely to be an original revelation from God, since Jude is comparing the actions of Balaam to the way people of his own day were behaving. He would surely have used something his readers were familiar with to illustrate his point - not to confuse the issue by introducing new never-before-heard-of information.
    The third is more specific still. Where in the OT does it tell us that Balaam taught Balak to make the Israelites sin? Certainly nowhere in the Torah***. Some may say "Well John was a 'revelator', so why shouldn't he be 'revelating' new facts?" But if so, how would the people of Pergamum already have heard of this "teaching" to follow it? Unless of course they were simply leading each other into sin and not associating what they were doing with Balaam - but again it would have made more sense for John to have compared their behaviour with something they already knew about, rather than choosing that moment to inject new information.
    I can only suppose that a lot more was known about Balaam at the time than has actually made it into the Torah. For one thing, the book of Numbers introduces Balaam without even telling us properly who he is. It's as if he was already too well known to need much explanation. (An equivalent for us might be Merlin or Robin Hood or Paul Bunyan.) Perhaps there were lots of stories of Balaam - the mysterious sorcerer/prophet who could talk to his donkey, and that John and Jude are alluding to some of these.
    *** OK I was wrong about this - as mordorbund and Scott pointed out, there's a reference to it in Numbers 31.
  5. Haha
    Jamie123 reacted to anatess2 in LoTR Movie - Helm's Deep   
    You may not be the only one but I'm not one.  Although LoTR got quite bloody it wasn't so bad that I would expect Jackson to have to follow-through a boulder dropping with crushed heads.  It was fine that the death scene is left off-screen and just understood to have happened.  It wouldn't make sense to expect the boulder to hit Aragorn's head as he wasn't below the wall.
    There's this comedy movie I saw in the Philippines when I was a teen-ager with Val Kilmer on it.  It was so crazy funny.  So Val Kilmer stormed a fort and got to the very top of the parapet where he fought a soldier.  He punched the soldier, the soldier falls off the edge, and on the next cut you see the soldier falling to the ground and broke.  Like ceramic.  I found that so funny I couldn't pay attention to the following scenes I was laughing so hard.  It might have been only me.  I couldn't find that scene on youtube but I found this one - with it's funny "continuation" scenes.  Hah hah.  By the way, I don't recommend watching the movie - I saw it in the Philippines where they censor scenes that are "not appropriate" for general audiences.  It may contain highly inappropriate scenes as comedies are wont to do in the USA.
     
  6. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in LoTR Movie - Helm's Deep   
    Am I the only person who was bothered by this? It's actually a few years since I last saw this movie (which I'm not totally 100% a fan of anyway) so I might be remembering it wrongly. But anyway...
    During the siege at Helm's Deep we see a close-up of defenders on the wall. A boy pushes a bolder over the battlements, which drops down (presumably) onto the people below. But at the very instant it falls, the movie cuts to King Theoden (Bernard Hill) talking either to Gandalf or Aragorn. I always expected that bolder to come down on one of their heads - and it always bugged me when it didn't. Though it makes no sense, the continuity (is that the right word?) sets you up to expect it - and when it doesn't happen you think "what happened to that bolder?"
    Am I the only one?  
  7. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from MormonGator in Education works best when...   
    Having thought about it a bit more, I think the wisdom of this poster may be deeper still. In education, there is often a big difference between the lesson intended, or the lesson perceived by the shallow-minded, and the actual take-home lesson:
    Intended lesson: If you do as you are told by older, wiser and better people, and follow all the rules they have laid down, then you will not come to any harm. It's quite easy isn't it? Follow the rules and you'll be happy. Disobey the rules and...that's when the problems will start. Actual Take-Home Lesson: "Older, wiser and better" people disagree with each other profoundly, and some of them are even at odds with themselves, and the rules they set down contradict each other. Thus whatever you do you'll get something wrong. And knowing this this is a valuable education. Kids were once told "speak when you're spoken to" and "don't answer back" - precepts so cliched that no one notices that they contradict each other. "Don't answer back" puzzled the heck out of me as a kid. What was I supposed to do when a teacher spoke to me? Ignore him? What it really meant (though it was too much to expect any adult to explain this) was something like "When I tell you to do something, do it and don't argue". But what if the instruction made no sense? Like for example if you were told to report to Mr. Bloggs' office, and you happened to know that Mr. Bloggs was home sick. If you pointed this out to the teacher, was that still "answering back"? And if you went to Mr. Bloggs' office and sat there all day waiting for someone you knew full well wasn't coming, they'd accuse you of "not using your common sense" - but to use your common sense would entail "answering back" - so which precept should you obey? In short, the rules don't always help and you have to think for yourself and take a risk that you might be wrong. Learning this is part of growing up, so being taught that "good little boys" and "good little girls" can live forever in peace by following an all-encompassing set of rules, by people blinkered enough to think that that is genuinely the case, and learning for yourself that this is actually a bunch of baloney, may not necessarily be a bad thing. [End of rant]
  8. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from MormonGator in Education works best when...   
    Having thought about it a bit more, I think the wisdom of this poster may be deeper still. In education, there is often a big difference between the lesson intended, or the lesson perceived by the shallow-minded, and the actual take-home lesson:
    Intended lesson: If you do as you are told by older, wiser and better people, and follow all the rules they have laid down, then you will not come to any harm. It's quite easy isn't it? Follow the rules and you'll be happy. Disobey the rules and...that's when the problems will start. Actual Take-Home Lesson: "Older, wiser and better" people disagree with each other profoundly, and some of them are even at odds with themselves, and the rules they set down contradict each other. Thus whatever you do you'll get something wrong. And knowing this this is a valuable education. Kids were once told "speak when you're spoken to" and "don't answer back" - precepts so cliched that no one notices that they contradict each other. "Don't answer back" puzzled the heck out of me as a kid. What was I supposed to do when a teacher spoke to me? Ignore him? What it really meant (though it was too much to expect any adult to explain this) was something like "When I tell you to do something, do it and don't argue". But what if the instruction made no sense? Like for example if you were told to report to Mr. Bloggs' office, and you happened to know that Mr. Bloggs was home sick. If you pointed this out to the teacher, was that still "answering back"? And if you went to Mr. Bloggs' office and sat there all day waiting for someone you knew full well wasn't coming, they'd accuse you of "not using your common sense" - but to use your common sense would entail "answering back" - so which precept should you obey? In short, the rules don't always help and you have to think for yourself and take a risk that you might be wrong. Learning this is part of growing up, so being taught that "good little boys" and "good little girls" can live forever in peace by following an all-encompassing set of rules, by people blinkered enough to think that that is genuinely the case, and learning for yourself that this is actually a bunch of baloney, may not necessarily be a bad thing. [End of rant]
  9. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Education works best when...   
    Intentionally or not, it's beautifully true. When you're a kid, your teachers tell you to do one thing, and your parents tell you to do another. And they both punish you for doing what the other says.
  10. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from MormonGator in Education works best when...   
    Having thought about it a bit more, I think the wisdom of this poster may be deeper still. In education, there is often a big difference between the lesson intended, or the lesson perceived by the shallow-minded, and the actual take-home lesson:
    Intended lesson: If you do as you are told by older, wiser and better people, and follow all the rules they have laid down, then you will not come to any harm. It's quite easy isn't it? Follow the rules and you'll be happy. Disobey the rules and...that's when the problems will start. Actual Take-Home Lesson: "Older, wiser and better" people disagree with each other profoundly, and some of them are even at odds with themselves, and the rules they set down contradict each other. Thus whatever you do you'll get something wrong. And knowing this this is a valuable education. Kids were once told "speak when you're spoken to" and "don't answer back" - precepts so cliched that no one notices that they contradict each other. "Don't answer back" puzzled the heck out of me as a kid. What was I supposed to do when a teacher spoke to me? Ignore him? What it really meant (though it was too much to expect any adult to explain this) was something like "When I tell you to do something, do it and don't argue". But what if the instruction made no sense? Like for example if you were told to report to Mr. Bloggs' office, and you happened to know that Mr. Bloggs was home sick. If you pointed this out to the teacher, was that still "answering back"? And if you went to Mr. Bloggs' office and sat there all day waiting for someone you knew full well wasn't coming, they'd accuse you of "not using your common sense" - but to use your common sense would entail "answering back" - so which precept should you obey? In short, the rules don't always help and you have to think for yourself and take a risk that you might be wrong. Learning this is part of growing up, so being taught that "good little boys" and "good little girls" can live forever in peace by following an all-encompassing set of rules, by people blinkered enough to think that that is genuinely the case, and learning for yourself that this is actually a bunch of baloney, may not necessarily be a bad thing. [End of rant]
  11. Haha
    Jamie123 reacted to zil in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    What do you call someone who likes farm equipment?
    .
    .
    .
    Protractor.
  12. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from dprh in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    "Sixteen sodium atoms go into a bar. Followed by Batman."
    I was the only person in my family who found that funny.
    Here are a few more:
    "What's the difference between an elephant and a grape? Grapes are purple."
    "What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming? 'Here come the elephants'."
    "What did Jane say when she saw the elephants coming? 'Here come the grapes'. (She was colour blind.)" 
  13. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    As kids, my brother and I used to love the Adam West Batman. We would also make up our own silly Batman stories (as if the real thing wasn't crazy enough) in which Robin and Batgirl were a pair of mischievous 10-year-olds, playing pranks on Batman and/or trying to steal "batmobiscuits" (bat cookies) from the "batmobiscuitbarrel". Our Batman was also a terrible show off, always too busy posing in his pimped-up Batmobile to catch any villains, and always getting embarrassed or knocked off his perch by Robin's antics. Happy memories.
  14. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    As kids, my brother and I used to love the Adam West Batman. We would also make up our own silly Batman stories (as if the real thing wasn't crazy enough) in which Robin and Batgirl were a pair of mischievous 10-year-olds, playing pranks on Batman and/or trying to steal "batmobiscuits" (bat cookies) from the "batmobiscuitbarrel". Our Batman was also a terrible show off, always too busy posing in his pimped-up Batmobile to catch any villains, and always getting embarrassed or knocked off his perch by Robin's antics. Happy memories.
  15. Haha
    Jamie123 reacted to NeuroTypical in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming wearing dark sunglasses?  Nothing.  He didn't recognize them.
  16. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from dprh in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    "Sixteen sodium atoms go into a bar. Followed by Batman."
    I was the only person in my family who found that funny.
    Here are a few more:
    "What's the difference between an elephant and a grape? Grapes are purple."
    "What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming? 'Here come the elephants'."
    "What did Jane say when she saw the elephants coming? 'Here come the grapes'. (She was colour blind.)" 
  17. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to anatess2 in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    Not anymore.
     
     
  18. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from dprh in Sixteen Sodium Atoms   
    "Sixteen sodium atoms go into a bar. Followed by Batman."
    I was the only person in my family who found that funny.
    Here are a few more:
    "What's the difference between an elephant and a grape? Grapes are purple."
    "What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming? 'Here come the elephants'."
    "What did Jane say when she saw the elephants coming? 'Here come the grapes'. (She was colour blind.)" 
  19. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Time Warp   
    I was going to tell a time-travelling joke, but you guys didn't like it.
  20. Haha
  21. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Time Warp   
    I was going to tell a time-travelling joke, but you guys didn't like it.
  22. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Education works best when...   
    Can anyone spot the irony here?

  23. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Education works best when...   
    Can anyone spot the irony here?

  24. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Education works best when...   
    Can anyone spot the irony here?

  25. Haha
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Time Warp   
    I was going to tell a time-travelling joke, but you guys didn't like it.