Thank-you Jackie for guest speaking in live Chat. Did you feel nervous in any way? It came off as really calm.

Well done, Jackie. How did you find doing it - were you overwhelmed with messages, or did Anu keep things tight?

Oh, man, belM--if I ignore my fingers being ice-cold, no, I wasn't nervous at all. It was a surprise to have to try to get used to not hitting Enter to go to the next line--I sent several aborted messages that way! Thank you, my friend. If you want another clue, I was too nervous to think of the French for "you're welcome"!


Thank you, too, CK! Well, I don't know if Anu controlled the sending--I guess he at least can, from his answer to the one question. I was kept busy constantly, but never had a sense of being frantic. Puzzled as to why some of the questions I couldn't get a response box for.

Well done - you did very well, glad you survived in one piece!

Thank you, Jackie, that was a good session. And thanks to everyone for participating.
Yes, I was keeping a queue of questions and sending them to the guest. I'll find out
why you didn't get the pop-up box in a few cases.

If you have any comments or suggestions for improvement, please feel free to email them
my way.

How lovely to have a word which purports to be from our Fearless Leader. But do not be deceived: there IS no Anu.

The board chaplain asserts: How lovely to have a word which purports to be from our Fearless Leader. But do not be deceived: there IS no Anu.

How, um, devine is this particular word from on high? And welcome back from the dead ...

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25 Authorized Version)

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25 Authorized Version)

Thought that was about Thomas...?
wow

Blessed Thomas has received a bad rap. He serves as an ikon of those who lack faith and has been slandered in sermons and writings for many centuries. In truth, Saint Thomas is the exemplar of modern thinking -- influenced by the scientific method -- which says that "If I can't measure it with the senses, it don't exist."

So St. Thomas was an atheist?

Saint Thomas was no atheist. He was a fellow whose own style of thinking made it more difficult for him to come to faith than did the styles of others. Regardless of how he got there, his faith was sufficient that it motivated him to carry the Gospel to what is now modern India, where there is a Christian Church named after him: the Mar Thoma.

Well ... sorry to doubt you Thomas, but do you actually have to see Anu (leaving out any issue with clearview screens in his extremities) to believe he exists?

My faith in his existence is absolute and untained by any doubt.

So there!

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29 Authorized Version)

Talking about saints, doubts and doubtful angels, where, oh where, is Jackie?

Last count = 1094 posts. Oh, yoohoo, Jackie! Cat got your fingers? Nya-nya-nya! C'mon babe, let's hear it! Louisville cheery mistresses, please stand up and be counted! Oooooooh, Jackie-54, where are you? Up out of your self-appointed gutter and speak, oh oracle of Kaintuck! Gawn off and joined the moral majority, have we? Died and gawn to hawg heaven? Get those pinkies pecking!

Our parish priest noted: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29 Authorized Version)

Yeah, but what does the unauthorised version have to say? Enough of this authorised schtick! I note, solely for the record of course, that the victors always get to write history.

And, on another tack, imagine if Shakespeare had lived long enough to write the KJAV. Now that would have made it a really good read!

The irrepresible Kiwi writes: Yeah, but what does the unauthorised version have to say? Enough of this authorised schtick! I note, solely for the record of course, that the victors always get to write history. And, on another tack, imagine if Shakespeare had lived long enough to write the KJAV. Now that would have made it a really good read!




The English translation of the Bible published in 1611 is known to Protestants as the "King James Version" or "King James Bible" but to Anglicans (whose translation it is) as "The Authorized Version." King James did not translate it; he commissioned its translation and authorized it to be read in Anglican churches.

Had Shakespeare contributed to its translation, the naughty bits would likely have been more apparent than in the AV as published.

Good grief CapK, all you are missing in that "t'est pas game" to Jackie is a paragraph insulting Bob Denver .

However, if you do choose to add it, please advise me in advance and I will make sure I am as far away as possible. Perhaps I shall take a small vacation, somewhere far, like Poland, and wait for the tsunami to die down.

Hi bel. Tsunami aside, a stir is a stir. Especially if you have been having a couple of bevvies with your neighbour and enjoying the summer sun on a peaceful Sunday. Sundays were made to be stirring.

HELLLLLOOOO Jackie!

FSter, well known to the Addams family, responded: The English translation of the Bible published in 1611 is known to Protestants as the "King James Version" or "King James Bible" but to Anglicans (whose translation it is) as "The Authorized Version." King James did not translate it; he commissioned its translation and authorized it to be read in Anglican churches.

As a lapsed Anglican (alway much worse than a lapsed Catholic, because lapsed Anglicans are never quite clear about what they have lapsed from ), I know, as you know, that King James is to blame for the situation today, bending over backwards to pander to everyone as a Scottish import allowed in on sufferance. The end result is a succession of Archbishops of Canterbury making noises in stilted RP (!) at royal weddings and not being much heard from at other times. Delegation is okay if you are careful who you delegate to. Jim the Oneth wasn't. Therefore (IMHO, I hasten to add) the King James version of the bible is (a) wildly inaccurate in some places - camels and needles being the obvious example - and (b) a dead boring read in all places - open at any page for an example.

Shakespeare would have made all the difference - and not just for the salacious bits! Although, come to think of it, all that "begetting" in Genesis could probably have been tarted up just as effectively by Kit Marlowe on a bad day. And Shakespeare just might have managed to get them to call it "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter".

I've always fondly remembered a cartoon which had two (ancient) rabbis poring over a scroll. One says to the other, "The book reads okay, but can't you, for Heaven's sake, think of a snappier title than Leviticus?"

Now there's a thought. Maybe we could get Tom Stoppard to rewrite KJV as the QEIIAV? It could star Gwennyth Pa ... no, forget it. [/rant]

Apologies to all offended.

Talking about saints, doubts and doubtful angels, where, oh where, is Jackie?

Last I noticed, she and Tsuwm had the same number of posts: 1094. I reckon that she's holding off until Tsuwm pulls a comfortable distance in front of her. In fact, it wasn't too long about that Jackie started posting so much. Jo was the first to become an Addict.

Oh Cap, you have just reminded my of one of my favorite comic strips.

It shows Moses and all of the chosen walking through the desert. Leading in front is Moses and his wife. His wife is looking at him in frustration and says " and you couldn't have asked the burning bush for directions?"

Says it all about the differences between men and women really