Richard_yaash

Ohhhh, I ain't touching that a one! No sirreee I must say though, you do give as good as you get! Hey I resemble that remark No need to apologize for that I hope you enjoyed the time talking to him so are you apologising to the whole state Yes and yes........................

Yes, it is nice to have family nearby, even if it is only most of the time My closest family is 400 miles away, which is nice at times also

My daughter is the one in Oregon, just outside Portland, she can both both angel and .... Right now she is in .... mode, but I love her dearly and look forward to her getting her act together. My son is in Alabama entering the armed services. Some of my family lives in So Cal., however they are spread all over the US including Maryland.

Oh my... Can I ever relate to that first he moved to Chicago, that was good, then to Minnesota........even BETTER! I got one in Oregon and the other in Alabama

Oh my... Can I ever relate to that

No need to apologize for that I hope you enjoyed the time talking to him

I have noticed that With the exception of one... Ohhh sorry, I honestly forget.........I wasn't talking about me! I know I was just teasing anyway Well you should mark your calendar, I don't turn red often! Hmmm, sounds like a challenge to me

I have noticed that With the exception of one... Ohhh sorry, I honestly forget.........I wasn't talking about me! I know I was just teasing anyway

I have noticed that With the exception of one...

As well as a sharp mind and a quick wit. I noticed that Poor Ovedya, he doesn't have a clue what he's in fer with you Ohhh of course he does...........guess who the very FIRST person was to change my name on Worthy! This could be fun to watch

I wonder, should I warn Ovedya?

As well as a sharp mind and a quick wit. I noticed that Poor Ovedya, he doesn't have a clue what he's in fer with you

Ohhhh, I ain't touching that a one! No sirreee I must say though, you do give as good as you get!

I can live with that!

Feed who to the squirrels? You, I'm sure since they would all miss their kickin post too much to let me get eat by squirrels................ Alright, I will agree in part and disagree in part So which do you want first, the good news or the bad news? Surprise me! Well, the good news is: I will agree to be squirrel bait The bad news is: I can't agree to you being the kickin post. Perhaps a post that kicks though...

Feed who to the squirrels? You, I'm sure since they would all miss their kickin post too much to let me get eat by squirrels................ Alright, I will agree in part and disagree in part So which do you want first, the good news or the bad news?

Hi Revel, Yes, that was it. Yes you have. Likewise I have replied many times. As for what I agreed with. That is relatively evident within my replies. A couple of places I stated being in accord, or at least in accord with the 'gist' of what you were presenting. If I did not post a critique, then I was in accord with a possible exception. I noticed in reviewing the thread that I missed at least one of your posts. Even now, as it was when I noticed it, it has been long enough that I will not go dig it back out. If I missed it, I missed it and so it shall remain. While I would love to be able to tell you that something you presented was new to me, or a POV that I have never seen considered, I can not. In this thread, the only item that was new, was the point made by Sheya Joie. One which I am still considering and will continue to consider until the next time I dig deep into this matter and either nullify or verify her point. IMO: It is a point of some merit. There is much we are in accord or near in accord upon. From the outset of this, I could foresee what was to come in regard to your view upon Shavuot, it is this view that permeates that rest of what you write. You also come across as slightly unsure with regard to Shavuot, I do not mean this in a negative manner. I simply state it in that from the outset of this until now, I have noticed little things in your writings that reveal this. Again, this is not a negative thing nor a put-down. It is very positive and I am confident that once you are strengthened in this regard, the rest will fall into place. May your blessings return unto you twice fold, be blessed my brother, Richard

And I quote: "Every polygamous family in the Bible, WITHOUT exception was troubled."I think you know what I meant. I was referring to every polygamous marriage that the Bible refers to. A little common sense can go a long way. We do not have ANY references to polygamous marriages that were not troubled. Every case in Scripture where we see multiple wives, we see a wake of trouble. That is just fact. And within the Scriptures there are many cases of recorded of one having multiple wives with no recorded trouble. You are presenting as you so eloquently stated: "an argument from silence, at best; conjecture at worst. We don't know either way..." Within a given church, it is not the ones who are happily married that we hear the most about. It is the troubled relationships that we hear the most about. So too is true of the Scriptures, for these things are presented in so that we might learn from them. Relatively, there is only a handful of polygamist relationships in which we read of trouble. I am confident that there were literally thousands of such relationships. Perhaps many in which there was no trouble. So based upon this: Should we deem all monogamous relationships as being detrimental or troubled since we hear more in that regard than we do of those which are sound, happy and complete? No. For that also would be an argument from silence. Just because we hear or read of troubles with regard to any specific issue, does not make that issue something from which we may regard every case as so being. It is not a case of "overthrowing" the pshat. The problem is that your view can ONLY be suported if you stop at pshat. My view is in accord with not only the pshat, but also remetz. I do not put much stock in drash and sod, for I do not care to allegorize or mysticize the text. Is there some to be gleaned through drash and sod? Yes. However it must remain in accord with the pshat reading. When working with cults and the doctrines thereof: The commonality between almost every single one of them, was that they would use drash and sod to interpret the text to the point of overthrowing the plain and simple reading. Drash and sod must remain in accord with the pshat reading. It could also be said that you are attempting to apply drash here above and beyond the pshat reading. Drash can not be used to supercede the pshat, not of the verse, nor of the surrounding context. One of the requirements of a king, is that he is to write a copy of the scroll for himself. Why is that? Let me ask you a point blank question: Do you interpret Deuteronomy 17:17A as meaning that a king is to have only 'one' wife? Further: If one interprets it in that manner would it be a fair statement to say that any king who took more than one wife was acting in a manner that was not in accord with the 'Instruction' [Torah]? It also reveals the intent of the author. The fact is that multiplying wives and multiplying silver and gold cannot be compared in the manner you are doing here. The fact that the same verb is used in both halves is irrelevant. It is the intent of the author that you are ignoring. So you say that I am ignoring it. IMO: The intent of the author [YHVH] was to remind a king not to take too many wives. Not that he [a king] was limited unto 'one' wife. The adverb mo'ed only enhances the verb yarbeh_lo, it does not change it's meaning/effect/intent. I will address this again below. It is not a case of "overthrowing" anything. It is case of letting the text simply speak for itself. Alright, once again let's examine the simple text: [Deut 17:16] Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim [Deut 17:17] Devarim YZ:YZ ve lo' yarbeh_lo nashim Here is a very simple rendering so it is relatively easy for everyone here to see: Deut 17:16 Only not have many horses Deut 17:17 And not have many wives To insist that Deuteronomy 17:17A means only 'one' wife, so also we must insist that a king may only have one horse. And yes, my previous assertion with regard to Deuteronomy 17:17B stands. It is the same verb, yarbeh_lo, it is the same conjugation. The same tense, the same personage, the same in every way. Just as it is in regard to horses in Deuteronomy 17:16A. We can examine the binyanim of the root verb rabah and dig deeper into this. However I really do not think it is necessary as a comparison of Deuteronomy 17:16A v. 17:17A makes it clear beyond any doubt IMO. In summation: It is impossible to imply that Deuteronomy 17:17A is intended to refer to 'one' wife. Further: To do so implies that the Kings of Judah and Israel, who wrote a copy of the Scroll for themselves, did not understand their own language and that each of them who took more than 'one' wife did so in direct contradiction to the Instruction [Torah].

Feed who to the squirrels?

I am not familiar with African Grays. Larry Curly and Moe That would make me Shemp Too funny, oh that had to be funny, the poor dogs Well than only leaves Curly Joe, and I didn't like him, so okay, you can be Shemp! Yeah, she would get onto the dogs because they were only allowed into that room when her or her husband was in there. Took us forever to figure out the birds were calling them, and then telling on them! That is hilarious.

I am not familiar with African Grays. Larry Curly and Moe That would make me Shemp Too funny, oh that had to be funny, the poor dogs

You love birds too! I used to raise cockatiels, and help a lady that raised Macaws (Scarlets & Greens) and African Grays........I loved it and them..............but the bigger birds live so long and well should have gotten one when I was younger, because nobody else in my family cares about them much. I would hate to leave one and nobody wanted it. I was only involved with parrots, primarily double yellow heads, I like cockatiels, but the Macaws were always my favorites, just never got around to doing anything about it. I used to spend a lot of time admiring the Macaws, Scarlets and Hyacinths were amoung my favorites.

I'm disappointed, no imagination at all.................. To be honest, I have drawn a complete blank... I can picture him, I can hear him in my head, but I can't remember his name... He was a double yellow head. I want a Hyacinth Macaw! Nice, if I was ever to get another bird, I would love one of those... they are incredible birds

I'm disappointed, no imagination at all.................. To be honest, I have drawn a complete blank... I can picture him, I can hear him in my head, but I can't remember his name... He was a double yellow head.

Poor poor Bubba4J Hush you old pirate! A skalawag I may be Whats your parrots name????????????? Polly What else?