darth_ender

Overbearing is an adjective ;)

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

2 Peter 1:20

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Again, I appeal to other sources, recent and aged:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -KJV

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[b] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." NKJV

"[Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so—it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit." (Amplified)

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (NRSV)

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." (Douay-Rheims)

Now there could easily be other versions that are closer to the NIV which you've quoted, but I didn't find any in my quick perusal.  Why do I appeal to these sources?  Well, to me it actually has a different meaning.  One speaks about men's general interpretation of existing scripture, the other referring to the prophets in the process of receiving scripture and not interpreting it in his own manner.  The meaning is surprisingly different, actually.  Do you have access to the original Koine Greek and might you offer your own interpretation of that passage?  I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it.  In any case, I don't think the message is that God provided exact words that must be repeated verbatim when included in scripture.  Paul's letters, for instance, are not a direct revelatory process, but rather the inspired writings of an apostle.

My own quick translation, clearly a bit clunkier than translations you quoted, "Know this first, that any prophecy of scripture is not of one's own interpretation. For prophecy did not ever* come by the will of man, but men being carried by the Holy Spirit speaking from God."

(Using the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum, 4th Ed.)

*the word here is pote, which the KJV translated to "in old time". I opted for simply using "ever", which is pretty much what all the other translations you listed went for. "At any time" was another candidate I considered using, as per my lexicon.

 

I feel like each and every one of those translations made the exact same idea clear, the first sentence saying that there are not multiple ways to interpret scripture, and the second sentence saying that the scripture these men wrote wasn't from their own wills, but came from God through the Holy Spirit.

Well, I do find that the NIV actually seems to drive home a different point, that being that prophets did not privately interpret the revelation as it proceeded from God, while the others seem to emphasize that the readers of scripture are not to privately interpret the revelations of God as they've come through the prophet.  The NIV seems to preclude my theory that prophets' revelations aren't word-for-word dictations while the others seem to allow for it.  Thanks for taking the time to offer your own translation; again, I'm impressed :)

 

 

I did indeed, but I like how you expanded upon it.  But just to be clear, God did inspire the thoughts and words of the prophets, but I don't believe those prophets became literal dummy's for a ventriloquist God.  I believe he used the limited mind's of inspired people, and as a result, inspired scripture was given that was still limited by the people who received it.  Let me give you a quote from an apostle of the LDS church (now dead) regarding Joseph Smith, which I believe holds equally true to the prophets of the Bible:

Elder John A. Widtsoe said:

The language [of the Doctrine and Covenants], with the exception of the words actually spoken by heavenly beings, is the language of the Prophet. The ideas were given to Joseph Smith. He wrote them in the best language at his command. He was inspired at times by the loftiness of the ideals so that his language or words are far above that ordinarily used by a backwoods boy of that day.

I have a much harder time taking the Books of Mormon and the things said about its translation process seriously, with no offense intended (more on this in a second). We've talked about the massive number of scrolls and papyri scattered throughout the east containing the scriptures found in the Bible. The reason so many textual critics feel so certain that what we have is extremely close to the autographs (that is, the actual original piece authored, usually via amanuensis, by the writer of that text) is because the sheer amount of copies we have available, ranging from different time periods.

The "proof of its corruption" that you mentioned and gave a wikipedia link to, is no such thing. It merely explains the process I am about to explain. 

Let's say I scribble down a quick message on a piece of paper, and hand it off to Warbler with the instructions to quickly copy it by hand and give the new copy to someone else, who Warb is to instructs to do the same and to give the new copy to yet someone else. Warb makes a copy and gives it to Bing, who makes a copy and gives it to Mrebo, this goes on for a while, and eventually somewhere along the line you get a copy, Ender. We can imagine some punctuation might get shifted during this process, or perhaps someone's handwritting wasn't all that legible and an h looked a bit like a b, or letters got dropped, or someone along the way changed a few original words into contractions, or used short hand for ease of copying. By the logic of your church's teaching, and apparently, history, your version of my original message is corrupted and unreliable. Which is very likely true.

However, we now set all these copies of this short message on the table before us, except for the original, which Warb accidentally used to spit his gum out in. Each person gives an account of the time during the day when the message was given to them, which gives us an indication of the chronological order of the messages and whose was the earliest. By examining the differences, and taking into account their rough chronology, we can see where variations started. Someone left a punctuation mark out here, the h was miss transcribed as a b here, changing the word he to be. And so on.

Only, with the actual manuscripts for the biblical books, we have an absolutely incredible number of copies! Some complete, some in fragments. We can compare texts, and parts, and fragments of texts, and date the material they are written on, determine when certain changes were made based on dates of the material and the consensus among certain generations of the text. We can tell which families certain pieces belong too, that is, a certain transcription mistake was made here, and continued to be made in the copies of copies. By this process, we can get incredibly close to what the autograph originally said, if not completely accurate.

Another thing that is impressive, is that even with these transcription errors and variations, the variations are extremely minor. We aren't left with huge puzzles of two or more vastly differing texts that we are trying to decide between, but instead a very large number of extremely minor differences. Most of these differences involve missing or differently placed grammatical marks, which may at times slightly alter the meaning or inflection of some sentences, but even then, the differences are very minor, more often than not it confuses what is being written no more than a dropped apostrophe or an i that didn't get dotted.

For example (which is always hard to give cross-lingually), if someone writes "dont", or "do'nt", or "dont' ", or "dont't" it is probably a safe bet they intended "don't". But then again, maybe they meant "donut" and somehow dropped the "u". Professional scribes would be hired to meticulously copy scrolls word for word. If you've ever tried to copy a text verbatim, you've probably found yourself reading a word, copying it, reading the next word, copying it, and so on, rather than actually reading the whole thing out as you go along. You can see how this would make it easy to make simple mistakes, like copying the same word twice in a row, or skipping a word occasionally, or maybe even repeating a line, or skipping a line or two entirely. This is where the mass number of fragments and copies come in. A three inch wide fragment of papyri from an older date could very well save the day, it may only contain a small number of words, pretty useless on its own, but if we match those sentences up to those of a larger text and determine that it is a fragment from what was once a different copy of that same text, then we may be able to use it to determine if the word was suppose to be "don't" or "donut". A lot of meticulous examination and cross-examination by well learned scholars of different faiths, backgrounds, and levels of belief go into this. Some with no belief at all, there is a famous agnostic who writes books that attempt to disprove the existence of a historical Jesus, who is a textual critic.

I actually understand this pretty well, though it's nice to read it articulated as well as you have.  I feel I am overstating (mostly inadvertently) the inaccuracy of the scriptures, though as you pointed out, my views do match those of textual critics more closely than most Mormons.  Let me restate my views with the hope that there is some greater accuracy in their interpretation: I see the Bible as far less corrupted by scribes than most Mormons; I also see it at least somewhat (though not drastically) more than you; how closely my views match the general consensus of professional textual critics remains to be seen, as I'm not sure how closely your views align with theirs.  But probably the word "corrupted" is coming off more harshly than I intend, so maybe I'll use a gentler word like "altered."  So let me say this: in the more obscure and ancient texts, there are more substantial differences than mere punctuation and spelling; there are times when the meaning is substantially altered, though in general the differences are minor.  To add further to the confusion, there is no extant "original source."  Most higher critics say that the Torah comes from oral tradition that when finally compiled (by various authors, to add to the confusion), led to our present text.  But we have no copies of these original compilations, and such a time when the Hebrews were not yet so ritualized probably was a vulnerable time for the texts when they would have been far more easily altered.  And yet, sadly, we have nothing that approaches the age of the "original" compositions.  Anyway, I'm probably getting sidetracked (as I'm so prone to do), so let me just give a link showing that there are and can be substantial differences between the differing families of texts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Biblical_significance

Now, to go back to my comments on Mormonism, and why I can't take its books seriously (and again, no offense intended). There isn't even one shred of tangible evidence that the golden plates ever even existed. We have a small list of "witnesses" who only witnessed these plates via visions, it seems, from our last discussion on the topic.

Our discussion, just to add clarity, as it was not all merely in visions.  Boy, I'm glad we can communicate with each other better now than then :)

There isn't even one shred of tangible evidence that the source material for any of the Mormon scriptures ever existed. All evidence points to The Book of Mormon being authored by Joseph Smith (though it could have been someone else), and its original language to have been English.

Ooh, this could be a fun discussion.  If we do proceed down this road, I will definitely move my responses to the Mormon thread.  But for now, I will offer you this outdated article:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

I say it's outdated in hopes that you will research further and find your own faults with it, which would then get the discussion going, if you find yourself interested in discussing it further. 

We even have the "Book of Abraham" (that's the one, right?) written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, that has no correlation whatsoever to what Smith claims to have translated from that same piece of papyri. This is the point where you start talking about the necessity of faith, which would be an obvious requirement.

Yes, this would be worth discussion as well.  Perhaps I will address in the Mormon thread.

At the very least, the Bible is without a doubt legitimate ancient literature, and not just potentially the creation of one man's imagination. Faith isn't needed to know it is from the time periods and regions we know it to be from. Faith is only needed to believe the stories told within it.

A legitimate criticism, probably among the most common I've heard.

Joseph Smith was more articulate than a regular ol' backwoods boy? Ah, then there is no denying it, then. I've always been a bit down on Middle English, just wasn't my cup of tea, thus Chaucer has never been my sort of thing. I've gone far to avoid classes that would require me to become familiar with Middle English. All this to say, I am not trained and have little understanding of Middle English. Still, I am convinced if you gave me a good week to play around with an untranslated edition of Chaucer and an ME dictionary, I could probably string together a few original sentences in ME. With more time and determination, I could throw together plenty more. There is a much, much smaller gap between the language of a country boy and that of the Mormon texts. It certainly wouldn't have been hard for Smith to mimic the writing styles of other works and to write stuff that appeared far above the language used by an ordinary backwoods boy of that time and region.

To his credit as well, he spent relatively little time working on the Book of Mormon, approximately two months of actual reading with transcribers.

Or does this predate all Biblical corruptions, a remnant of a time before the Bible couldn't be trusted?

Hmmm...I think someone is conflating my personal beliefs with some misunderstanding of the official teachings of my church.  Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church and history shows to have taken place.  But the verse and Bible remain true.  So now I shall go into a nice, lengthy explanation.  This was what was largely deleted in my old post.

Ah, so the Mormons have proof the Bible is corrupted? This interests me.

"The Mormons" have the same proof the rest of the world has.  I think I phrased my sentence poorly so let me restate: "Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church teaches and history shows to have taken place."  My bad.  But just for the benefit of all, let me provide a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

On top of that, I'm sure you're well aware of the variations in the Latin Vulgate, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Jewish Torah/Tanakh based on the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Nag Hammadi library, etc.  These all demonstrate ancient variation in the Old Testament.  Ultimately there are potentially millions of differences, some great, some small, in the Bible.  To me this doesn't make the Bible untrue, but does show that humans, no matter how diligent they've tried to be, could not preserve God's word perfectly.  And I think that's okay.

But the variations of the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, etc. are translations and of no more consequence than any other language translations, since we have our hands on the original Hebrew texts. The Septuagint was, instrumental in some cases, in assisting us in our understanding of Hebrew, as our understandings of ancient Greek were far superior to our understanding of the much more ancient and long dead language of Hebrew. But that isn't to say we translated from the Septuagint, but rather used it to compare to the Hebrew texts to pad out our Hebrew lexicon and reconstruct a few words from the lost language. The variations between the Hebrew texts and the Septuagint are well documented, and again, are of no consequence to English translations of the Old Testament, which are translated from the original ancient Hebrew (and Aramaic in small parts written during foreign captivity). Some of those other "variations" you mentioned, such as Masoretic texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi library, have helped us greatly in the process of textual criticism, adding more texts to the process I described above. These were new discoveries containing new complete versions or largely complete versions of texts we already had to compare to for accuracy, and to fit into the puzzle of dates, and branches, and generations, and to help us discover what was closer to the original. They certainly didn't confound or confuse anything.

The variations of the Septuagint and Vulgate are not inconsequential, as they were based on different Hebrew source material than we have before us.  If they were modern translations, it would make little difference.  But they are ancient translations, taken from a less standardized source, and thus offering their own unique perspective.  It's obvious you are knowledgeable on this topic, more than I, but I am at least aware that they are translations of a source different from the Masoretic, making the textual differences valuable for scholars.  The Dead Sea Scrolls link I provided above demonstrates such to be true for at least the LXX, and the Vulgate would still contain some similar value.

But my point is that Paul was not saying, "The Bible" is God-breathed.  He said "All scripture."

So let's dissect that meaning a little further.  Assuming that Church leaders were inspired as they finalized the biblical canon, one might say, "Well, God made sure what he wanted ended up in the Bible and what he didn't want did not."  Assuming this is true, one might then argue that 2 Timothy 3:16 is indeed referring to those books which have actually been canonized.  But again, the verse says, "All scripture."  So what about the Quran?  What about the Bhagavad Gita?  Are these God-breathed as well?

That's kind of a ridiculous extension to make. It clearly wouldn't be referring to all that is and would ever be considered "scripture" by any religions, it would be entirely reasonable to assume Paul is referring to the Jewish scriptures we know the early church to have used.

Well, I understand that, but my point is that when Paul wrote it, how could anyone really know what writings he was referring to?  Obviously not the non-existent Bible, except perhaps, as you said, the largely canonized (but not completely, nor yet standardized, nor even compiled in a single volume) Old Testament.  But he was clearly referring to New Testament writings as well, including those not yet written.  My point is that Paul was not yet speaking of the Bible, but of any true God-given revelation, and his emphasis was on its benefits.

Well, he wasn't necessarily referring to the as of yet mostly unwritten New Testament at the time. I'd argue that he wasn't referring to the New Testament at all, and could have never known his work would be canonized, or even someday be considered scripture, but rather was strictly referring to the Jewish scriptures of the time (the already canonized and regularly used portions of the Old Testament, and some Apocryphal books). 

However, if we are to believe the words written in 2 Peter 1:20, then we can easily assume God was guiding Paul's hand through the Holy Spirit when he wrote those words, and it was, in fact, intended to apply to the entirety of what we know today as the Bible. 

Agreed.

The lion story I don't recall.  But I know, God was pretty harsh at times.  I won't argue with you there.  I guess he had strict expectations, but also was merciful.  Remember, this same God who might physically kill a person won't necessarily cast him off spiritually.  It could be more of a lesson.  I don't really know what to say that would be satisfactory at the present, though.

Whoa! I was getting anachronistic there with the lion story. Sorry, it too was Old Testament. I was mixing up stories as well, while God used lions to kill people on more than one occasion, I was specifically thinking of the bears God sent to eat a couple of kids who were making fun of the prophet Elisha's alopecia. The others I mentioned were all NT though.

Oh, I never make mistakes like that ;)  I thought you might have been referring to the bear story.  But you are correct, the others are in the NT, and they are harsh.  God can be harsh.  But he can also be loving.  I'd probably want to start a whole new string of discussion to address this topic further.

I disagree.  What I teach is equivalent to this: There appear to be canals on Mars.  This seems to contradict other information about Mars, such as the potential lack of substantial atmosphere and its distance from the sun.  But given our limited understanding, it appears that intelligent life created these canals.

This could be the response of someone during a transition period, between better understanding the nature of Mars but still having "evidence" (albeit incorrect) of canals.  I don't claim to know what is fully or partially true or false in the Bible.  Perhaps God somehow did stop the earth's rotation so the sun appeared to be still, though I find this unlikely.  But I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and will hold it to be true in its own context, as I have no greater knowledge on that particular day to provide clarity.

I don't hold the Bible to be as untrue or corrupt as you seem to think.

It is interesting where we differ. If there is a God as powerful as the Bible claims him to be, I see no reason why such a God couldn't stop the Earth's rotation, or why this would even be unlikely. Or why this would even matter.

Oh, of course.  But I also believe God is a God of order.  He performs miracles when necessary, but I believe that many miracles are natural laws people did not/do not today understand.  He created the laws of the universe.  I don't see why he would need to violate them .  But then again, I am mixing my "observational data," and I feel no need to do so when I have nothing better to offer.

I don't see these things as evidence against the Bible. Ancient Hebrew creation myths, which make the points and teach the lessons they were intended to, should hardly be judged on the standards of a modern day science books. Nor should ancient biography, such as the Gospels, each coming from a different angle, and containing different themes, be judged on the standards of modern biography (with its focus on accuracy of events and numbers and places). The gospels vary in their retelling of events, numbers, times, and chronologies,  because those things didn't matter in ancient biography. It was about the what, not about the exactly how. Forcing modern standards on an distant culture from 2,000 years in the past. 

Hey, I said something like that!

That's certainly worth bragging over :)  Please give me context.  I mean, were you a theology major at some point (I gather you were once far more believing)?  That's pretty darn cool.  My bragging was not to put you in your place, but to illuminate my point as well as show that I'm not a complete ignoramus on the topic.

I was once going to be an anthropologist (and suppose I was a bit of an amateur one for a while), and a big part of my focus was on religious studies. I've always been fascinated by religion and culture. When it finally came down to it though, earning my PhD, then spending the rest of my life begging for grants began to sound a lot less like fun as the time drew closer, and I made some reassessments.

I was actually going to school for nursing for a decent while too, so I can relate a little bit to your current situation. Stressful stuff. Eventually, I decided digging for impacted stools, giving enemas, inserting catheters, sticking people with needles, dealing with various tubes, and most of all, ridiculous amounts of paperwork and charting wasn't for me, and I quit, much to the dismay of my clinical instructor. I liked wounds, they were fun, but not when they reeked. I decided if the medical field was for me, I should have shot for ER physician or a PA in an ER. They get to do all the fun stuff.

Wuss! ;)  In all seriousness, I can't blame you.  Not fun.  An anthropologist though...that's very cool.  Truthfully, I would have loved to go into that myself, were it not so financially dismal.  That seems to be how it is for all my interests truthfully.  You've probably written in Random Thoughts or something, but I wasn't following the career discussion that closely, but what did you ultimately select?

I think you already once commented on reading some of my old posts in the Politics thread and being surprised I was "an ardent defender of Christianity". I grew up in a household that was very strong in the faith, but I never was so much. There were a couple of phases in my life were I made a conscious decision to embrace my faith, and my first couple of years at OT.com were in the midst of one of those.

I see.  Well, I never judge a man for his stance, though I offer mine with boldness.  It always makes me a little sad that someone only sees things with one eye open, that being the eye of tangible evidence, whilst the eye of faith remains firmly closed.  I mean no criticism, but rather a wish of what I believe to be your wellbeing.  In any case, I enjoy our discussions, and I genuinely appreciate how you make me think. :)

Sorry for taking so long to respond.  You know how busy I am.  I will try and do a more direct reply to your most recent post soon, but I thought it would be good to take a step back and look at my philosophy of science and religion.

I have a book called Religions of America.  It basically is a Q&A of several different prominent faiths in the U.S., plus some unbelievers.  It’s rather interesting, if a bit superficial in its examinations.  But one chapter in particular has intrigued me greatly and has made the purchase quite worthwhile; it has forever shaped my own views on science and faith: “The Religion of a Scientist” written by Warren Weaver.  It’s a shame I couldn’t simply copy his entire chapter in here, as it is nicely written and summarizes why he has faith in God, but I will do my best to summarize his ideas and contribute my own.

“[T]here are two [scientific concepts] that I judge to be of central significance in any discussion of the relation between science and religion.  If I am to advance with any persuasiveness my ideas concerning religion, I must deal briefly with these two most important principles of quantum theory.

“The Uncertainty Principle

“In order to predict where an object will be at some future moment (and the power to predict is the very essence of scientific procedure), one must know where the object is now and how it is moving. In 1927, the young German physicist Heisenberg enunciated the principle when one seeks to measure the location and, at the same time, the velocity of an elementary particle (such as an electron), then as one of these measurements is made with greater and greater accuracy, the simultaneous measurements of the other quantity is necessarily less and less accurate.  A joint uncertainty exists in the two measurements, and uncertainty that cannot be avoided.”

Here Mr. Weaver then discusses the reasons for this which, if you are unaware, can be read in this very wordy Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Picking up a few paragraphs later in Mr. Weaver’s chapter: “It is essential to realize that the point here is not that it is difficult simultaneously to measure position and velocity with more and more accuracy, but that it is impossible.

“The recognition of the uncertainty principle made it clear that science cannot furnish us with a rigidly deterministic theory of events.  A precise forecast of the future is excluded if we can have only an inaccurate measurement of present circumstances….

“The Principle of Complementarity

“Such considerations led the great physicist Bohr to conclude that the information we can obtain about an object by using one set of experimental conditions of observation should not be expected to be the same as, or necessarily consistent with, the information we obtain when using a different set of observational procedures [emphasis mine]. (If the second set of observational conditions excludes the first set, then the information obtained by using either set must be viewed as complementary to the information obtained by using the other observational procedure.)  However contradictory the two sets of information may appear to be, they must be accepted as equally valid.

“This dualistic viewpoint, now referred to as the principle of complementarity, permitted physics to escape from a most embarrassing dilemma.  Under some experimental conditions, electrons (and also photons, which are the quantum units of light) behaved as though they were particles, like exceedingly small bullets moving at very high speeds.  But under other experimental conditions, electrons and photons behaved as though they were wavelike in character, producing diffraction patterns, just as waves do.”

Here I interrupt Mr. Weaver to point out for the benefit of any reader the real dilemma here.  These are not merely light particles traveling in bursts like waves.  While science clearly demonstrates under certain experimental conditions that light is provided by speedy particles, science also demonstrates that light is actually the disruption of a medium.  Remember, waves are not something independent in and of themselves, but rather the disruption of a medium, like ripples on a surface of water.  The waves are not pieces of water, but energy moving the water in peaks and troughs.  But the only medium is the electromagnetic field through which light travels.  It’s confusing, I know, and I can’t claim to fully comprehend it.  This link might help: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2087/how-can-light-be-both-a-wave-and-a-particle 

Said Mr. Weaver: “To an old-fashioned physicist, all this sounded like nonsense! What is an electron—a particle or a wave?  It cannot be both: yet that, in fact, is precisely the answer!  It can be both.  Bohr’s principle of complementarity indicated that under one set of observational curcumstances, electrons must be considered to be particles, whereas under other observational circumstances, they must be considered to be wavelike.  By accepting the two contradictory descriptions, and byusing each under appropriate circumstances, we have a richer, more satisfying total concept than is furnished by either description alone....

“To summarize: quantum theory, and particularly the uncertainty principle and the principle of complementarity, have made it clear to us that:

“1. The observations of the scientist are never strictly objective but depend upon the observer and upon the circumstances of observation.
2. The measurements of science are necessarily subject to some imprecision.
3. Scientific theories cannot be rigidly deterministic.
4. Science accepts, and in fact views as desirable, the sort of contradiction that is recognized and utilized in the principle of complementarity.

“My Religious Belief....

“…I [have been] sustained—and liberated—by the concept of complementarity.  For if I ask a question from one point of view, I will have one answer.  But if I ask the same question from another, and quite different, point of view, I may very well have a second answer.  The second may be inconsistent with the first, but it can be viewed as complementary.  And the two answers taken together will provide a richer, truer picture than either separately.”

He then talks about the religion and science change, though in different ways: while religion keeps its core largely the same, its more superficial aspects change, while in science it is the superficial aspects that offer more certainty, while the core understanding of the universe changes.  And in the end he closes with how he sees the universe at times with reverence of the order of the universe and its Creator, while at other times, especially when in deep emotional need, He looks for the comfort of his Father.

I hope I have done this man’s writings justice, as I find it brilliant, and hopefully my liberal quoting has not bored any readers, CP3S in specific.  I certainly don’t see everything equally as Warren Weaver, as I am more dogmatic in my religious beliefs that he describes himself.  But the core message is the same.  I understand that at many junctures, science and religion seem to entirely contradict without any hope of integration.  I will not state where the greater truth of one ends and another begins, as I don’t feel that is necessary or conducive to my fuller understanding.  For the present I am content to use different sets of “observational data” (scientific evidence vs. scripture and revelation) to guide my thinking as applicable.  If I’m discussing the history of the universe, I will talk about a 14 billion year-old universe with a 4.6 billion year-old earth with a 200,000 year-old species called homo sapien.  But if I am discussing the Creation, Fall, and Salvation of mankind, I will discuss God creating the earth at his command, and Adam and Eve emerging from the Garden of Eden ~ 7,000 years ago and spawning the rest of the human race.  I do not get hung up on this contradiction.  The constant between all this, the c of my equation that fits into both pictures for me and fits, is that God created this universe, as he is the great Lawgiver that all natural laws obey, that Jesus Christ is his Son, and that he suffered and died for my sins to appease the spiritual laws of the God so that I may again return to live with my Father.

If you’ve got the stamina, I have one more example for you.  In science there are two very prominent and essential theories that shaped physics from the 20th Century till now: the Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics Theory.  These two theories have given far greater understanding to mankind about how our universe does what it does.  Both have stood up to intense scientific scrutiny.  And yet they contradict each other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

(I won’t pretend to understand these concepts beyond a basic level, nor to have completely read any of these three articles)

No one has been able to satisfactorily explain these two theories and how they might coincide, though several flawed ideas have been postulated.  Assuming both theories are correct and true, how is it that they cannot be reconciled?

Perhaps one day they will be.  To me, science and religion may seem irreconcilable, but I believe that one day, a day long after I’ve died, I will understand how it all fits.  For now, I will rely on my two different observational methods: the scientific method and revelation from God.

The article states that they are "winding things down" and wrapping things up, but it doesn't sound like it's completely over or like they're going to leave a bunch of loose ends.  It sounds like they want all their i's dotted and t's crossed, but I'm not sure it will be through the TV show format.  You know, all shows must end at some point, but it sounds like it won't be so abrupt as to leave all things unanswered.  Hopefully whatever means they use to finish the show will do it all justice and tie it in to the rest of the G canon nicely.  I have to say, I haven't really watched much of the show yet, though there is a strong desire in me to do so, but I can also say that I've heard nothing but good stuff about it, and I could easily consider it an essential element to my personal canon when I am including the PT in there as well.  I need to start watching this, as I've only gotten The Clone Wars movie and the first two seasons.  I think I'll have to go out there and buy the rest and spend the summer watching them all!

Adywan, I noticed that one of the Rebel troops in the trench had a hair sticking out of his cap in one shot that disappears the next time we see him.  This really needs to be fixed, as it totally pulled me out of the scene!

Harmy said:

That binocular shot was actually my favourite part of the clip. It looks so awesomely menacing.

Agreed.  It looks far better than the original to me, especially with the pilots actually visible through the window.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

CP3S said:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions, how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

Like Warbler, this is a matter of faith, a matter of testimony, a matter of personal revelation.  I believe that Jesus in fact was resurrected because I believe God has made such known to me.

Ah, good. Perhaps due to the fact that he has never made this explicitly known to me and many others, as he has kindly done for you and Warbler, he'll be willing to cut us some slack in the end. 

I certainly believe he will.  I believe he is a God who actually gives plenty of slack, even to those whom he punishes harshest.

Seriously, how do you believe something so unbelievable, when the only source of this unbelievable tale is a book that you admit to being untrustworthy?

How untrustworthy have I made it seem?  I feel the book is indeed inspired and true in most regards.

It felt like you were much more down on it and its grubbiness a few posts ago.

I'm trying to distinguish between its faults due to human hands and its ultimately true message in spite of those faults.

2 Peter 1:20

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Again, I appeal to other sources, recent and aged:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -KJV

"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[b] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." NKJV

"[Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so—it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit." (Amplified)

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (NRSV)

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." (Douay-Rheims)

Now there could easily be other versions that are closer to the NIV which you've quoted, but I didn't find any in my quick perusal.  Why do I appeal to these sources?  Well, to me it actually has a different meaning.  One speaks about men's general interpretation of existing scripture, the other referring to the prophets in the process of receiving scripture and not interpreting it in his own manner.  The meaning is surprisingly different, actually.  Do you have access to the original Koine Greek and might you offer your own interpretation of that passage?  I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it.  In any case, I don't think the message is that God provided exact words that must be repeated verbatim when included in scripture.  Paul's letters, for instance, are not a direct revelatory process, but rather the inspired writings of an apostle.

So here it claims the Holy Spirit guided the writers of "scripture" (which as you pointed out, could mean just about anything and not necessarily what became canonized). God, being perfect as he is, we would have to assume the Holy Spirit would prevent manly grubbiness from making its way into scripture, as explained in the verse above (which granted, could be manhandled grubby scripture itself). You would imagine if God would go this far, he'd have the Holy Spirit guide Athanasius' hand as he wrote his list of what he believed to be inspired works, and later when the men at the Second Council of Carthage adopted that list into what is now known as the New Testament. Why guide the writers with the Holy Spirit then ultimately allow some of those writings to be thrown into a compilation with uninspired books and others left out of the canon to be forgotten and widely disregarded.

But you already addressed and dismissed this line of thinking in your post.

I did indeed, but I like how you expanded upon it.  But just to be clear, God did inspire the thoughts and words of the prophets, but I don't believe those prophets became literal dummy's for a ventriloquist God.  I believe he used the limited mind's of inspired people, and as a result, inspired scripture was given that was still limited by the people who received it.  Let me give you a quote from an apostle of the LDS church (now dead) regarding Joseph Smith, which I believe holds equally true to the prophets of the Bible:

Elder John A. Widtsoe said:

The language [of the Doctrine and Covenants], with the exception of the words actually spoken by heavenly beings, is the language of the Prophet. The ideas were given to Joseph Smith. He wrote them in the best language at his command. He was inspired at times by the loftiness of the ideals so that his language or words are far above that ordinarily used by a backwoods boy of that day.

Or does this predate all Biblical corruptions, a remnant of a time before the Bible couldn't be trusted?

Hmmm...I think someone is conflating my personal beliefs with some misunderstanding of the official teachings of my church.  Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church and history shows to have taken place.  But the verse and Bible remain true.  So now I shall go into a nice, lengthy explanation.  This was what was largely deleted in my old post.

Ah, so the Mormons have proof the Bible is corrupted? This interests me.

"The Mormons" have the same proof the rest of the world has.  I think I phrased my sentence poorly so let me restate: "Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church teaches and history shows to have taken place."  My bad.  But just for the benefit of all, let me provide a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

On top of that, I'm sure you're well aware of the variations in the Latin Vulgate, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Jewish Torah/Tanakh based on the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Nag Hammadi library, etc.  These all demonstrate ancient variation in the Old Testament.  Ultimately there are potentially millions of differences, some great, some small, in the Bible.  To me this doesn't make the Bible untrue, but does show that humans, no matter how diligent they've tried to be, could not preserve God's word perfectly.  And I think that's okay.

But my point is that Paul was not saying, "The Bible" is God-breathed.  He said "All scripture."

So let's dissect that meaning a little further.  Assuming that Church leaders were inspired as they finalized the biblical canon, one might say, "Well, God made sure what he wanted ended up in the Bible and what he didn't want did not."  Assuming this is true, one might then argue that 2 Timothy 3:16 is indeed referring to those books which have actually been canonized.  But again, the verse says, "All scripture."  So what about the Quran?  What about the Bhagavad Gita?  Are these God-breathed as well?

That's kind of a ridiculous extension to make. It clearly wouldn't be referring to all that is and would ever be considered "scripture" by any religions, it would be entirely reasonable to assume Paul is referring to the Jewish scriptures we know the early church to have used.

Well, I understand that, but my point is that when Paul wrote it, how could anyone really know what writings he was referring to?  Obviously not the non-existent Bible, except perhaps, as you said, the largely canonized (but not completely, nor yet standardized, nor even compiled in a single volume) Old Testament.  But he was clearly referring to New Testament writings as well, including those not yet written.  My point is that Paul was not yet speaking of the Bible, but of any true God-given revelation, and his emphasis was on its benefits.

I think we need to reconsider the meaning of the verse.  There are works that were given to men by God, and there are those that were not.  Let's further analyze the verse for more clues as to meaning.

"All scripture is God-breathed..."  What does that mean?  Does that mean the literal word proceeding from the mouth of God?  Couldn't be, as you so happily pointed out, there are contradictions.

Have I so happily pointed this out? I don't recall, I tend to argue that the Bible doesn't really contradict itself, as so many believe it does. Many state that the behavior and nature of God from Old Testament to New is rather at odds, but I'm not sure I'd call that so much of a contradiction. After all, even in the New Testament there is plenty of talk of homosexuals burning in lakes of fire, God sent lions eating up children to punish them, and couples being struck dead at God's hand for nothing more than telling a minor lie. I don't feel there is really much of a contraction between this and the Old Testament God who struck some poor fool dead for trying to save the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over with his bare hands.

 

The lion story I don't recall.  But I know, God was pretty harsh at times.  I won't argue with you there.  I guess he had strict expectations, but also was merciful.  Remember, this same God who might physically kill a person won't necessarily cast him off spiritually.  It could be more of a lesson.  I don't really know what to say that would be satisfactory at the present, though.

You used the NIV translation.  Let's look at another one or two.  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (KJV); "Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration)..." (Amplified); "All scripture, inspired of God, is..." (Douay-Rheims); "Every scripture inspired of God is..." (ASB).  To me, the phrase "God-breathed" is equivalent to "inspired of God".  If we are assuming that the entire Bible deserves to be canonical, then I think we can safely believe that the entire Bible is "inspired of God" without believing that it is without human error.  This already proves my point, but let's just examine the rest of the verse, going back to the NIV.

I assumed you'd know that "God-breathed" simply meant "inspired by God" without a lengthy look at many different translations.

My apologies.  I thought that perhaps you were taking "God-breathed" to be more literal, like "verbatim from God's mouth," not, "inspired from the mind of God to the mind of man," which is how I interpret it.

Proves your point? Eh hem, and how? That is a lengthy leap you make there to say inspired of God doesn't mean without human error. Mix the Timothy verse with the 2 Peter verse, and you get the impression that it does, indeed, mean that human error would not have part in the inspired Holy Spirit lead writing process.

I believe I just answered this, but again, I don't take "inspired" to mean "from God's mouth to prophet's stylus."

However, none of this really matters. It is a lot like arguing whether or not Klingon blood is really pink, or if it just turned pink in the zero gravity environment, or perhaps when it mixed and had a reaction with some sort of gas at the beginning of Star Trek VI. Or arguing all the technical details of how Gandalf the Gray returned as Gandalf the White. I feel like it is pointless discussing the way supernatural things may or may not work.

True.  We don't know a lot.

and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 If the entirety of the Bible is indeed inspired of God, then I think the rest of this verse is equally true.  I hold no internal contradiction.  In fact, I'd apply that verse the remainder of LDS scripture.

I'm pretty sure Paul didn't intend it to apply to something written thousands of years later by some American.

If it were a true book inspired by God to a prophet, whether ancient American (i.e. Book of Mormon) or modern American (i.e. Joseph Smith), I think Paul would mean exactly that.  We don't believe God stopped talking to man, but that man stopped listening for a while.

You and Warbler paint a very fickle picture of Christiandom from its source material on up. If the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy, then by extension, this must put everything Christianity teaches at question. You can't very well say that it is full of error, then say, well, we know for sure this part isn't erroneous. A leaky boat isn't water-worthy, no matter how small the percentage of leaks are in ratio to the portions that are impermeable, if it leaks, then its going to sink.

No, not a fickle picture.  Too many humans want to believe in a religion that is without flaw, and the non-believers will criticize from that angle.  But just because human knowledge is limited does not make everything they say untrue.  Just like Mars was once thought to have canals created by intelligent life in the 1800s does not mean that it is not still red, the fourth planet from the sun, with two moons.

No, this would be a bit more like finding some sort of teaching material from the 1800 explaining canals and life on Mars, and deciding to use it in the science class room to teach kids about Mars, despite knowing it is inaccurate.

Admitting the Bible is flawed, corrupt, and contains stuff God didn't intend to be in there, and accounts of events that never took place, but then deciding to place all your faith into some of its accounts (an alleged divine offspring dying for the sins of mankind and recovering from death three days later, for example), is quite a bit like trusting a document from the 1800's for its scientific details on space and Mars. 

I disagree.  What I teach is equivalent to this: There appear to be canals on Mars.  This seems to contradict other information about Mars, such as the potential lack of substantial atmosphere and its distance from the sun.  But given our limited understanding, it appears that intelligent life created these canals.

This could be the response of someone during a transition period, between better understanding the nature of Mars but still having "evidence" (albeit incorrect) of canals.  I don't claim to know what is fully or partially true or false in the Bible.  Perhaps God somehow did stop the earth's rotation so the sun appeared to be still, though I find this unlikely.  But I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and will hold it to be true in its own context, as I have no greater knowledge on that particular day to provide clarity.

I don't hold the Bible to be as untrue or corrupt as you seem to think.

Of course, Mormonism is a very different animal that believes in a very different take on the nature of God and Christ, to be a Mormon, you'd have to accept that most of the things the Bible teaches us about God and Christ are utterly false. So naturally, it would be much easier (actually, necessary) for you to accept the fact that the Bible is some percentage bunk, than it would be for members of more traditional denominations to do so.

 

And this is where I would urge you not to jump to conclusions once again.  We can discuss this further in the very exciting and well-articulated Mormon thread.  ;)  But I will briefly say here that I find the Bible quite supportive of our teachings of Deity, of God, of Christ, and that I do not believe what it says to be false.  It is neither easier or necessary to accept anything you suggest as bunk.  But I genuinely mean it, if you'd like to point out any error on my part in this regard, we can chat about it there :)

*Warbler sigh* How many threads must this discussion take place over?

As many as necessary ;)  In all seriousness, my suggestion arises from the desire to keep things categorized and preserved for future reference.  It seems more appropriate to keep debates over specific LDS doctrine in the LDS thread.  But I'm not picky if you want to keep it here.

Forgive me for my confusion, but earlier you stated that your church and history has shown that the Bible is indeed corrupt. However, you do not believe anything in it to be false? And you feel that it, despite the many contradictions (starting with the Bible clearly teaching that God is pure spirit, having now fleshly form), is quite supportive of the teachings of the Mormon church?

Worth further discussion, but again, I'd rather keep it in the LDS thread.  But for now:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Corporeality_of_God

 

Please enlighten me.  I do not with to "airbrush" anything or take anything out of context.  I am not even claiming that I have it all worked out.  I'm just saying that the Bible (from Greek biblios meaning "books," as in a compiled library) says nothing about its entirety being correct.  It would never self reference in that manner because there was no Bible to self-reference when its individual elements were being written.  Even the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, or our Old Testament) was not canonized till after Jesus.

Since you admit to "bragging a bit" later in this post, I suppose it wouldn't do any harm to say that most of the history you have thrown at me regarding canonization was unnecessary as is telling me that "Bible" comes from the Greek biblios. I can read Koine Greek fairly fluently, and I have studied, been tested on, and written plenty of papers on church history and the canonization process.

That's certainly worth bragging over :)  Please give me context.  I mean, were you a theology major at some point (I gather you were once far more believing)?  That's pretty darn cool.  My bragging was not to put you in your place, but to illuminate my point as well as show that I'm not a complete ignoramus on the topic.

 

So with regard to where those grubby hands interfered, I was giving you my personal view, not the more general LDS view.  The more general view is that the transmission of the Bible over the years filled with more errors than I do.

BTW, the discrepancies between the Bible and Book of Mormon are not so large as you believe, either.  If you've not read it, I recommend it, if for nothing more than educational purposes.

I've never read it cover to cover, but I have read large parts of it long in the past.

Good for you :)

I feel like your personal view fits much more tightly with the way textual criticism actually works, the stuff textual critics have learned over the years, and the means by which we get our modern day Bible translations than the more general LDS view does.

I believe it does, though I don't believe official LDS doctrine precludes my views.  Rather, it seems that most novices on the subject (not saying I'm a pro, but at least I've done some reading) tend to drift towards a more simplistic interpretation.

I have come across more than one Mormon acquaintance who was fully convinced our English translations of the Bible were translated from Latin translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, rather than translated directly to English from the original languages.

Yes, my own seminary teacher taught something like this.  The Catholic Bible (as I'm sure you know) follows the Latin Vulgate, but most modern translations use original source material.

Wee!  I'm in the Warbler/Mrebo league now! I just need to sigh and roll my eyes more ;)

^Well, that's because Jesus was born in A.D. 1, not 0 C.E. (which is actually 1 B.C.).  And most scholars will tell you that he was actually born in 4 B.C.  But hey, who's counting?  I guess with such lax timekeeping, we could celebrate the 10th anniversary at almost any point!

I know I'm cluttering up your thread with my giddiness, but it just is truly awesome to me.  I mean, not only are the effects very nice and not only does it repair the continuity problems with more flair, but it simply is a strategically sound move in a real battle.  You wouldn't want to fight a battle with only slow-moving artillery; you'd want some light support to take out any small craft that could exploit your heavy vehicles' vulnerabilities.  It just makes so much sense to have them there.  So to me, this is both visually and logically very satisfying.  I'll shut up now.  Thanks Ady for the special clip and all your hard work.

Was he a proponent?  I probably am too new to have read his arguments for it.  Here was my plea, but it looks like it was given with the assumption that Adywan probably wouldn't include them himself.  However, I will say that I remember when I wrote it that I secretly hoped he would read it and that it might influence his decision :)

Well, you had me thoroughly convinced until today!  I think I even wrote a post some time back pleading for you to reconsider.  *shakes head* I can't believe you've been lying to us the whole time :)

Yeah, I remember you, 005, telling us that we "wouldn't even miss them."  Man, I can't wipe the smile off my face!

SPOILER (for those reading ahead but have not watched the clip):

I have to brag just a tiny bit.  Ady, you mentioned a surprise.  Well, today I was read the ESB novel during lunch, and I was pondering on the part where Luke fell off the AT-AT and how we see the AT-ST in the background.  I thought how sad I was that you were going to remove them, and then it struck me: THAT'S THE SURPRISE!!!  I almost wrote a post speculating on it, but then I didn't want to spoil it for anyone else, and besides, I could have been wrong.  But I can't tell you how much it pleases me to see those chicken walkers there!  They are simply beautiful and fit perfectly!  Thanks for your marvelous work and for putting the effort to include them!  I know that everyone is happy with your work, but know that you've especially pleased me.  And they're perfect: the ESB version rather than the ROTJ version!  Thanks, Ady!

So I logged in to the Jedi Council Forums yesterday and found myself banned.  I have not commented for close to 2 months.  I can't imagine what I did to offend there, unless it was the content of this thread.  They admit that accidents happen, so maybe that's what went on in my case.  However, I can't help but laugh at how touchy some of the mods are, and perhaps my comments about Darth Boba are what did me in :)

EDIT: I should share this message from them:

darth.ender,You are currently BANNED from the Jedi Council Forums.You are a terrible person. Also, George Lucas hates you.

In most cases, bans are temporary; occasionally they are accidental.

Please submit an unban request using the Unban Requests forum to inquire in to the nature and the duration of your ban. Your request will be sent to one of our moderators for review and you should receive a reply within 24 hours.

Please keep in mind that all aspects of the board system, including unban requests, are subject to the Terms Of Service.

People evading bans by creating or using alternate accounts will have their alternate account banned, and time added to their original ban.

They don't make it very clear on how you are supposed to get unbanned (i.e. no pointers on how to submit an unban request).  I just figure I'll wait.  I'm not in so big a hurry that I will try to figure it out right now.  They said that you could use a sock account in some silly limited fashion, but I'm not in the mood.  Whatever.

Do as you like, but quite honestly the schematic looks great to me...right where it should be.  If I were to give a slight suggestion, it might be the camera movement during the shot.  It seems a bit too mobile to be natural.  I hate suggesting things when I obviously have no skill to speak of, but I think even more subtle movement would appear more natural.  Thanks for sharing.  It really is awesome!  Hope that doesn't offend :)

Aalenfae, you are so awesome!  That's exactly what we should have seen in the first place!  I know you are busy and it pains me to think of the wait before your PT will come out, but every time you leave an update, I get excited.  Fine work, as always!

Yeah, you're right that in the grand scheme of things, there isn't too much that directly contradicts.  I guess it's more the direction it headed, and imaging if things had continued in that direction, that really seems like a contradiction.  Splinter is certainly a very different tale from Empire, yet both are, in a sense, direct sequels to ANH.

I certainly agree, it is a dark story in places and would be difficult to adapt while keeping it kid friendly.  I'll have to have a look at the comic and see how Ms. Sternhagen matches with Halla.

I have to say, the assortment of supporting characters is pretty interesting to me.  There is no Han or Chewie, but we get some rough equivalents in the form of Halla and the Yuzzems.  Halla is lacking in allegiance and sort of a scoundrel while the Yuzzems are intelligent brutes.  Obviously there are substantial differences, such as Halla's age, sex, and motivation.  But in the end, I find it an interesting and different assortment.  When's the last time the EU kept a main character or two while supplanting the rest with a new cast?  I find it endlessly interesting.

^I'm really crying about this one!

I'm sure something similar could be done, but I'd rather see the original, even recast.  In my mind, Splinter is an insight into the early concepts of Star Wars and the direction in might have gone.  All subsequent literature has been much more restricted by the expanding canon of various levels.  But this book has such a fresh and different perspective that I'd love to see in motion.  Its appeal to me is its contradiction to more recent sources.

BTW, I read that Foster was really shocked when Luke and Leia turned out to be siblings, considering just how romantic many of their moments are in SOTME.  I thought that was pretty funny.

I hear that guy who did Joker in Batman TAS is really good with voices.  I'll bet he could do Luke Skywalker like no other! ;)

In all seriousness, an animated version might be the best way to go.  I like the idea!

It amazes me that Star Trek has had some fan films that really are big budget and encroach on true Trek canon.  Most noteworthy would be the impressive Star Trek: Of Gods and Men and its pending sequel, as well as Star Trek: Phase II, which draws inspiration from scripts originally intended for the real Phase II.  Both have included TOS Trek actors and even Eugene Roddenberry has taken part in the latter.  These are high profile productions that apparently have not had any interference from Paramount.

Well, I’ve been rereading Splinter of the Mind’s Eye.  I know I’ve talked about it before, but I really enjoy this book.  It was written by Alan Dean Foster, the true author for the ANH novelization.  It was designed as a low budget sequel that could be converted into a film if ANH was not successful in theaters.  Of course as such an early piece of EU, it has no concept of Vader as Luke’s father or Leia as his sister.  It feels like a lengthy episode rather than a large scale story, but it truly is an interesting and different tale.  A big part of me would love to see a movie version of this, but I doubt it would ever happen.

Well, that doesn’t mean I can’t wish.  Like Trek, it would be fun to see someone with a lot of money and ambition cast new actors and film Splinter of the Mind’s Eye.  It would be especially neat if they were true to the story, throwing out all preconceptions of the soap opera relationships in the official Star Wars and instead offering a sort of alternate sequel.  I doubt it would ever happen (especially considering the fact that we don’t know Disney’s stance on such things), but it’s fun to dream.

Your thoughts on SOTME?  Or is there something you’d like to see made into a fan film?

I'm digging these colors.

Thanks guys.  I do appreciate the kind words.  Yes Warbler, if I fail this semester, I can retake it next Spring, but...I only get one second attempt.  If I fail then, I have to settle for being an LPN or try to get into a different nursing program at another school.

@Bingo, I thought that doctor was in fact your arch nemesis.

In nursing school you must get an 80% or better to pass.  I just took my third of four exams yesterday, and for the third time scored under 80%.  Unless I can really bring it up with fourth test and the final exam, I will not pass this semester.  I'm very sad about it.  I studied so hard for yesterday too :(

Officially bucked up! :)

(Please don't misread that)

He must be the real thing; he's not wearing hockey pads!