Shrdlu

Here, after numerous rabbit trails, are the answers to the three puzzles that began this thread. For convenience, there now being 16 pages (!!), here they are again. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (II Kings 8:26), yet "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (II Cronicles 22:2) It's the same guy in both verses. (2) This one has to do with the dimensions of the "molten sea" outside Solomon's temple. II Chronicles 4:2 says "He made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, ..., and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about." But every math student knows that the circumference of a circle is pi (about 3.14159) times the diameter, so if the diameter is 10 cubits, then the circumference would have to be about 31.4159 cubits. And God doesn't say "about ten"; he says "ten". (3) "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13), yet "To everything there is a season, ..., A time to kill." (Ecclesiastes 3:1 and 3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Ahaziah was anointed to be king when he was 22, but he didn't actually step onto the throne until he was 42. It's that simple! In those days, things were very complex in the Kingdoms of Judah (Southern) and Israel (Northern). At one time, there were three kings of the Northern Kingdom at the same time. There are other examples in scripture of a king being anointed to be king long before he stepped onto the throne. David was anointed by Samuel over 7 years before he took over from Saul. And the Lord Jesus Christ was anointed as King of the Jews in Matthew Chapter three and still hasn't stepped onto the throne, almost 2000 years later! But he will, and it won't be long now. (2) Ten cubits is the outside diameter. "The thickness of it was an handbreadth", verse 5. Allow about 4" for your handbreadth. The circumference referred to is the inside circumference. Then it all works. A cubit is usually taken to be 18" (it's the distance from the fingertips to the elbow). Everything fits if you round to the nearest whole number, which is a reasonable thing to do in a description like this. (If you want to work backwards from the 30 and the 10, then 4.05" as the handbreadth will do, if you are fussy.) I don't know about you, but my hand is about 4" wide. They must have had standard weights and measures in Jerusalem, of course. So, anyone trying to discredit the scriptures is going to have to look elsewhere. As I said, I would never have spotted this supposed error anyway. (3) This one is so obvious that it's almost embarassing to explain. (I'm not accusing any poster of having said that this was an error, by the way.) God says it's a sin to commit murder, as in killing your neighbor to grab his possessions. The Bible interprets itself. When Jesus was asked about the law, he said "Thou shalt do no murder", Matthew 19:18. The reference is to Exodus 20:13. But, it is not a sin to kill the enemy if you are in your country's armed forces. Exodus 20:13 does not apply to war service. (I am not saying that it's good to kill, even there, and I'm glad that I have never had to kill anyone in a war zone.) Exodus 20:13 would also not apply to reasonable self defense, or defense of your family where there is no alternative, and no good legal system will charge you with murder for such a killing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is always a good explanation of supposed contradictions in the Bible. I'm sorry, but there are so many that I cannot post about all of them. If it appears to be rude that I did not go into that posted website, then my apologies.

I'm a big fan of Monk's Prestige material, and have been since the LP days. There are real treasures there. They are essential Monk, no question. The session with Miles and Bags is definite desert island stuff! And those three fantastic quartet tracks with Rollins, otherwise scattered over two or more albums, are wonderful, with a feeling of inevitability about the solos; they are so satisfying. If only they had recorded more that just those three that day.

I agree that this is a fine collection. Not all of the performances are Joe's best, but there's a lot of excellent stuff contained therein. "Power To The People" is certainly a great album, worthy of Blue Note. The original engineering isn't the best, and leaves me wishing that Rudy had done some of the sessions, and the remastering in this (now fairly elderly) box set is not exactly of Japanese quality, but I'd still recommend the set without hesitation. Joe did about three albums for Flora, and two are on my wants list at the moment. She was in fine form in those days. (Another of her Milestone albums from that era, "Stories To Tell", is also well worth getting - Joe isn't on that one.)

I didn't know Wes could play in German.

One of his daughters was the female lead in "The Pretender" (the TV series). Also, didn't Paul Chambers marry Bird's mother in Paris?

Isn't that largely because Oscar was the house pianist for Granz's labels for several years? Also, I presume that Oscar and Norman got on well. If I were Granz back then, I would probably have used Oscar regularly, too. He was a very competent, reliable player, not a drunk or a druggie, and provided very nice support for Norman's stable of artists, including a Lester Young whose health had gone down the spout and who needed to be helped very sympathetically at a session. If I were a Coleman Hawkins, or a Roy Eldridge, and Norman said "you got a date and Oscar's on piano", I would feel very comfortable about that. But, for me, he usually lacks that spark, that something that makes jazz satisfying. There's an attitude, and I picked up on that when I talked with him. (I met him when he was given an honorary doctorate at a Mickey Mouse university I worked at in Canada in about 1980.) As others have said, it's too repetitious. It is well summed up by what our pianist said once at my place, when we were playing some albums back in the 70s. His name is Stan Jones, and he came out of the London, England scene. Stan was well musically educated and liked tons of pianists, and was particularly into Monk, Silver, Evans, Tyner and Hancock. He had very broad tastes, and also liked Mendes and Stevie Wonder. Someone insisted that I stick on one of those "Exclusively For My Friends" LPs, so I did. Stan got kinda ticked off and said "I don't want to hear that ***@!"

Well I don't hate anyone. Re the multiple homicides, do you actually know anyone who's saved and has committed multiple homicides? I have never killed anyone, and I have no intention of ever doing so. I hope I never do. But, God will forgive all sin: "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7) As I've said many times, I am not in any organized religion. Fear is a whole topic unto itself. Briefly, fear of just authority is very healthy. One should fear parents, school principals, civil authorities, and, above all, God. That is, fear punishment if you step out of line. Without that, you have chaos in the home, school, society, and the whole earth. The stupid governments in many countries have moved to remove good punishment from homes, schools and from the law enforcement agencies, and the results of this are plain to see. I'm not talking about fear of being mugged, or fear of a drunken Dad who beats up the kids at home. Things like that are awful. I'm talking about fear of just punishment. We should all definitely fear God. He can cause an earthquake, or a volcano to erupt. He is infinitely powerful. Fear of God will lead a person to turn to him and ask for forgiveness, and God is so loving and merciful that he will pardon all of one's sins as a free gift. When one gets saved, one has a loving Heavenly Father who looks after all needs. You can't ask for more than that. My own Dad was a loving man. He was a great father. He would punish me if I misbehaved, but he seldom had to do so, as I tried my best to obey him, fearing what would happen if I did not. Being a loving parent involves punishing the kids at times, and God is no different. I repeat, fear is healthy. It will make you be careful what you do.

No, philosophy, as a separate subject, is not my bag. My training has been math, music and Bible. Sorry if I appear to be arrogant. I am not arrogant, but the preaching of the gospel is often mistakenly taken as arrogance. I do not intend to offend. And I do have compassion on those who have not trusted Jesus as Saviour. I care very much about everyone. If I did not care, I would not publish the gospel. It would be reprehensible of me if I hid the wonderful gospel under a bushel basket. As I said in another thread, I have limited time to post, and there is no way that I could find enough time to discuss all the supposed contradictions in the Bible. Sorry, I'm not deliberately ignoring you. If this appears to be rude on my part, then please forgive me. I'll do the best I can as time permits. Re tolerance, we that are saved do tolerate those of other beliefs and are harmless toward them. One must distinguish between speaking out against a religion and hating those in it. I dislike all religions, but God commands me to be as nice as possible to all people. There are very few saved people living near me, but I do my best to be a good neighbor to all, no matter what their religion, race, etc. But I'm not going to stop preaching the gospel. As Paul said, "woe unto me if I preach not the gospel."

Take heart, my friend; there's a lot of people (Christians and non-Christians, believers of any faith) who agree with that sentiment. Myself included, and I am a confirmed Christian. I've always despised the way that "organized religion" (a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one) divides people more than it unites. But I tend to lay that blame more at the feet of legalistic Bible-quoting Christians more than anything else. shrdlu, at the risk of sending my soul into eternal torment, do you not see what you are doing? You are becoming the very Pharisee and religious scribe that Christ stared down on a daily basis! I don't doubt your knowledge of Scripture, but I DO question your use of it! This is the exact same tactic used by the religious scribes of Jesus' day! The very thing that kept seekers from finding God! Don't you remember what our Savior said in the 23rd chapter of Matthew: This is you, my brother! You alienate more than you attract! You are setting even firmer the hearts of those who seek the Lord (or at the very least could use an introduction different than the radical-right espouses), when all they really need is a little softening!!! Whatever happened to "Come to me, all you who are weary, and I will give you rest." You said earlier that That goes COMPLETELY against what Christ said: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The point is notthat children, like us, are all sinners; far from it, even though we are. The point is, we are to embrace and be embraced, just as Jesus did, just as God does, unconditionally. Period. I beg you, my brother in the faith, to remember the words of St. Paul: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." Peace. A reply to this and other posts from those who seem to think that I hate people, or am a Pharisee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't hate anyone. The gospel and the scriptures in the Bible are what do not admit any other way to heaven, not me. I am a preacher of the Bible, so I would be wrong to say anything else. I am an independent Baptist, and not part of any "organized religion", whatever that might be. There is no parallel between the Pharisees and a Bible-believing preacher like me. This accusation is often wrongfully leveled at preachers. The quotes by Jesus were aimed at proud, religious leaders who were not saved and were very self-righteous, thinking themselves to be superior to others. I am not proud and I have no righteousness of my own to boast of. I am a filthy sinner, and God has saved me in spite of that, even though I don't deserve it. I am not counting on any supposed good works to earn me a place in heaven. I hate legalism, and our Church strives to avoid this. As a missionary, I have been in over 350 Churches (mainly in the U.S.) and some are kinda legalistic, and I don't like those. God frees the believer from the law, in any case - not to disobey it, but from the penalty for breaking it. As a preacher, I must quote the word of God, for that's where the power lies. Jesus said it was wrong to be "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". As "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10), how can you say that I am trying to shut people out of heaven? Rather, I am showing people how they CAN get to heaven. I teach faith, not works. The Pharisees were teaching obedience to a stack of man-made laws, which no-one could keep, and that's why Jesus accused them of trying to shut men out of heaven. But God says salvation comes by grace as a free gift without works. Also, unlike the Pharisees, who were unsaved, I HAVE entered the Kingdom of God. I totally agree with your use of Matthew 11:28 "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." A big Amen! Turning to the children, they ARE baby sinners ("In sin did my mother conceive me", Psalm 51:5) but I don't hate them. I love the little ones and have had three of my own - who are now all saved, by the way. The words that Jesus spoke about children have to do with the fact that we must all come to God as humbly as a child, seeking forgiveness, if we are to get saved. (I also like cute puppies and baby deers, by the way.) The scripture from I Corinthians 13 (about sounding brass and tinkling cymbals) is often trotted out when the gospel or other Bible doctrines are being presented. This use of I Corinthians 13 is entirely a misuse of scripture. If it were always apllied in that way, very little preaching or witnessing could ever be done. You can't use it to negate the gospel. But it is still scripture, and we, in our Church, do exhibit faith, hope and charity. We LOVE to help people in need, and do so whenever we are able to do so, with no requirement that anything be given in return. So, you see, there is no reason to be angry with me. It is just a misunderstanding. If we were able to meet face-to-face, and have a nice meal together, I'm sure we would get on fine. A bulletin board is kinda impersonal. With best wishes, Shrdlu

All sorts of things to reply to here, and I'm in a rush, so I'll be quick: I don't make the rules, I'm just telling you what God says in the Bible. It's not a matter of me saying that I am right. Forget me. I'm telling you what God says, and we can know "the mind and intention of God" when it comes to salvation. In fact, there is a verse that says "We have the mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:16). Surely I am not the only one that you have encountered who publishes the gospel. Also, if I were to agree with you that all religions are good, then I would be no friend, but a liar. I want to help. God is not a "her", he's a "him". Everyone is responsible for accepting Jesus as Saviour, and God, who knows what each of us will do in the future, will get the gospel to us if we will trust Jesus, no matter where we are. It is most certainly true that followers of religions will go to hell when they die if they have not accepted Jesus as Saviour. I am not the one that said this: God did in many scriptures, such as John 14:6. Don't pin it on me, as if I were being spiteful or judgmental. I have nothing to do with it, other than the command that I publish it (Acts 1:8). People who are saved are NOT justified in trying to eradicate those who are not. All we must do is to tell others the gospel. Some nations have persecuted other nations, claiming to be working in the name of God, but they were NOT real saved people. That's why I do not use the word Christian to describe myself: it has been abused very badly, and it has no real meaning anymore.

Wow... God making children suffer right from birth. That's some swell religion ya got there... T'ain't no religion. Religions are worthless. And it's God's business if some nations, including children, suffer. As I said, he knows what people will do when they grow up. If you are not suffering, be very grateful. None of us deserves anything good from God at all. Children are not "innocent little darlings": they are baby sinners. As an extreme example, Hitler was once a little cutie, being bounced on Momma's knee. But, I hasten to say that God loves his creation, man, and wants us all to be happy and well cared for. All he asks is that we turn to him and obey him. He has the right to ask that, as he is King of kings and Lord of lords. He da boss. I am very grateful for his mercy to me, as I know that I am a sinful abomination, worthy of nothing.

As Jesus would say, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures." (With respect.) The expression "the Christian world" has no meaning, and Jesus and the gospel are not a "foreign European religious identity". The gospel is for the whole world, and was first preached in Israel. And it isn't a religion, as salvation is offered as a free gift: religions say (falsely) that you have to try to earn it yourself. God knows in advance who will accept the gospel, given the opportunity, and he gets that gospel to each person in their own language. (The Bible will translate into any language.) The stuff about heaven's gates and Peter is not Biblical. A person decides here on earth whether or not to accept Jesus as Saviour, and then, if saved, goes straight into heaven on death (or the rapture) without any interrogation. And it has nothing to do with Peter, although he will already be there as one of millions of saved people. God does not hate Mbutis, or Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus. He "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Many people, in many ethnic groups and many religions, have gotten saved.

The ark was raptured out of the earth when Nebuchadnezzar's armies invaded Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's Temple (where, of course, the ark was housed, in the most holy place). It is seen in Heaven in Revelation 11:19: "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament ... " Wow, things get "raptured out" just like people? So I guess this "Rapture" thing isn't like the time travel device in The Terminator movies, right? You remember, Reece wasn't a techie, but he knew that only living tissue could go through .... That's not all, Dan. In Numbers 10:33-38, the thing actually flies before the children of Israel, leading them through the desert. God raptured it out as there was no way he was going to let the Chaldeans get their hands on it.

The ark was raptured out of the earth when Nebuchadnezzar's armies invaded Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's Temple (where, of course, the ark was housed, in the most holy place). It is seen in Heaven in Revelation 11:19: "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament ... "

This is almost 100% correct. The various human authors of the Bible did have different styles and lived under widely varying conditions. But divine inspiration of the Scriptures is not incompatible with this. God had a way of letting each writer write in his own style and yet the results are still given by God's inspiration. It's a bit like preachers' sermons today: you will find lots of different styles, but God can speak to the listener's heart through any of them.

I can give an immediate explanation. No problem. God distinguishes between nations and individuals when it comes to sin and the punishment thereof. There is also a distinction between the penalty after death administered to each individual, and a penalty on earth imposed on a person - which might be made to carry over to his descendants, for certain crimes/sins. Each individual must bear the punishment, after his death, for his own sin, unless he got saved while still on earth by accepting Jesus as Saviour, of course. Thus (Ezekiel 18:20) the son does not bear the punishment for his Dad's sin: namely being judged as an individual after death and cast into the lake of fire, preceded by a spell in hell. No-one will ever be sent to hell and the lake of fire for another's sins. Then, the scripture in Deuteronomy 24:16 says that no-one is given the earthly death penalty by the country's authorities for a crime committed by another. And we know that no-one ever is (at least, not in a just society). When it comes to nations, God says, in those Exodus verses, that his punishment of the nation in question will sometimes carry on for several generations. Thus, people born later will suffer because of what their ancestors have done. (It's a bit like the comment that rain falls on the just and the unjust.) This suffering is only on earth, not after death. So there is a big difference between the two types of punishment. An example of the national judgment is the Jews in captivity in Babylon, living in a foreign land under the control of the Chaldeans. These Jews had children who were born in captivity, and these children suffered because of the earlier sins of the fathers, even though they were not personally to blame. Another, contemporary, example would be a child born in an impoverished country that is suffering from prolonged drought. God has brought on the drought as a judgment on that nation for its evil false religions (that's why it happens), but the new-born child is not individually to blame, at least, not at first. Another point about this punshment for several generations is that God, being God, knows what each of us will do in the future. Thus, if an individual, or nation, is going to be only evil in the future, then God sometimes makes them suffer right from birth. So, you see, there is a logical explanation of these apparently contradictory scriptures. If one approaches the Bible with a humble heart, not looking for errors, then an explanation will be found. Sometimes the answer is not easy to find, but one can ask God to reveal the answer. When I first saw that king who was 22 and 42 at the same time (!!), I did not know the explanation. But I did not think there was an error. I just wanted to know how this could be explained. I asked my then pastor, who did not know the answer at first. But he did find me an answer, and I will post it "in a future broadcast", as Robert Stack used to say.

I figure that this, and the discussion about whether Jesus really exists, belong in this section, as they aren't political. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You hear a lot of folks saying, "Well, you know, the Bible has lots of errors in it." When I ask them to show me one, they never can, but they stand by what they claimed. Funny thing, that. A bit like the guy who said "Well all those animals would never have fitted into that ark" and then admitted that he had no idea how big the vessel was. (It was about 450 feet long!) So, I thought I might toss out a few supposed errors and contradictions, just for a bit of fun. Some people apparently have nothing better to do than to look for mistakes in the scriptures. I once told a friend that there were supposedly some errors, and he said "If there are errors, then I am blissfully unaware of them." Them's my sentiments, but I, and other preachers, are prepared to defend the Bible against any attempts to find faults. People get all excited when they think they've found an error. What they don't realize is that God has written that book in such a way that an attacker can break his neck over it if he chooses to do so. I sincerely hope that you won't. Now, English is my mother tongue. When I say the Bible, I mean the Authorized King James Bible. If you want to find errors in other English versions, you'll have to line up behind me, because I can produce stacks of them. I won't defend them, although some of the "errors that aren't errors" are the same in those, too. In fact, a lot of the attacks on the Bible apply to Hebrew and Greek, as well as versions in other modern-day languages, and so have nothing specifically to do with the King James Bible. The King James Bible isn't the issue here, in the main. So, here we go. I'll give three, and then give the solutions later. (Doesn't that sound patronizing, ha, ha? ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (II Kings 8:26), yet "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (II Cronicles 22:2) It's the same guy in both verses. (2) This one has to do with the dimensions of the "molten sea" outside Solomon's temple. II Chronicles 4:2 says "He made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, ..., and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about." But every math student knows that the circumference of a circle is pi (about 3.14159) times the diameter, so if the diameter is 10 cubits, then the circumference would have to be about 31.4159 cubits. And God doesn't say "about ten"; he says "ten". No, I wouldn't have noticed that "error" either, but someone did. (3) "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13), yet "To everything there is a season, ..., A time to kill." (Ecclesiastes 3:1 and 3) This one is a classic "boo boo" in the scriptures. By the way, none of these three "errors" has anything whatsoever to do with which modern-day Bible version you use; they are present in Hebrew. Later, Shrdlu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. If you want more of these puzzles, get a copy of "Problem Texts", by Peter Ruckman, which can be ordered from the Bible Baptist Bookstore in Pensacola, FL. They have a website.

Probably because those sessions aren't beyond the European 50-year copyright limit yet. Das stimmt.

Sounds like another "borrowed" mastering job. I don't know where they got them from, but the sound is excellent, Hans.

How is that album? I've been wanting to hear the non BN albums by those two. I love their several BN albums, of course. Wonderful stuff. As I understand it, there were about three albums by them under Land's name. Is that about right?

Church friends in Tampa, and in Statesville, NC, report everything O.K., praise God, but some locations had severe damage. I was real ticked off with Fox News's coverage over the last day or two. I hate that channel anyway, but tuned in briefly to find the latest. As on the Simpsons, which parodied such reporting, they were treating it all like an entertaining action movie. Pure show biz.

This is a superb collection. It was almost all released on CDs by Blue Moon in Spain, with very good sound. They left out one alternate take (the only alternate in the entire Mosaic set) and the contents of the last two sessions, from 1955, if memory serves. A friend sent me a CDr burn of the stuff that wasn't put out by Blue Moon, plus a copy of a copy of a copy of the Mosaic book - just barely readable! I don't know whether the Blue Moon CDs are still in print. That company's website isn't very user-friendly. [blue Moon also issued about 4 more CDs of Rabbit's sessions from 1937 until the first Verve session in 1951. Those are also superb, and include some soprano work by the master.]

I guess Ornette will finally be able to afford to eat, now.

That Doug Payne website has a lot of details about McFarland. Our Japanese friends are going to reissue "Soft Samba Strings" and "Today" in November, according to HMV, as well as the album with Bill Evans. I haven't heard "Today", but I really like McFarland's other two Skye albums, which are regularly sold on eBay for next to nothing (someone apparently bought a boxload of them). On eBay, I saw an LP of "Profiles", which has an excellent lineup and looks very promising. I would have snapped it up, but it was mono, and I would prefer stereo for a big band.

I did not get to hear Jamal until quite recently. I think the 50s trio stuff with guitar (Columbia and Parrot/Argo) is superb. Very rich in content. It was a shock to hear how much of "Miles Ahead" (not to mention Miles' quintet stuff) had been directly lifted from Jamal's recordings. The recording quality on those records is as lousy as the music is good, sadly. With you, Mike, I hope that un-reverbed tapes still exist. (Even worse than reverb is reverb plus fake stereo, which I came up against in my first attempt to get the "Chamber Music" LP.) The famous album with "Poinciana" also gets the Shrdlu seal of approval! Caution: watch out for "sealed" Argo LPs. I got a "sealed" copy of "Chamber Music" and it was unplayable. It had a kind of film all over the grooves. I paid a lot for it, too! I don't think I will ever buy another sealed LP; I want it to be opened so that the seller can check the state of the vinyl before I buy.