Momof3
-
Posts
400 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Momof3
-
-
Genesis 1:25-27 has humans created after the animals, whereas Genesis 2:18-19 has humans created before the animals. This is simply how it's written. How the text is interpreted is the part the Christian has to contend with. The author does not agree with your interpretation, and as time goes by, fewer and fewer Christians are persuaded as you are that the confusion is due to "poor, poor writing." But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Who killed Goliath? How long did Noah stay on the ark? How many animals did he bring with him? Don't get caught up in the details, but look to the bigger problem: The bible simply says more than one thing on many subjects, and sometimes those differences are in diametric opposition to one another. While you may find comfort in certain interpretations, without an objective source to confirm your hypothesis, your belief is as credible as his. This is the first part of his article - exposing the problem of accepting the bible as an accurate account of the historical record. It fails any credibility test without ever having to go elsewhere for outside information.
I don't have time to comment on everything here... But just to clarify... Genesis 2 does not have humans created before the animals. And he doesn't say that in the article either. He says, "in Genesis 2, plants and animals are first." So my poor writing comment was directed at the article, not at Genesis. In Genesis 2, God brings the animals to Adam so he can 'name' them, but nowhere does it say that they were created after him.
It's not a matter of how the text is interpreted. It's just what's there and what's not there. If there's a contradiction, there's a contradiction. But it's unfair to state that these are 'obvious contradictions' that a 'careful reading' will show up - when that's just not true. And I don't think I gave hypotheses. I think I was stating what was actually in the text. Anyhow, I can keep working through it tomorrow if that helpful. :)
The second part of his article seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the bible as a moral guide as used by fundamentalists. He asks, according to the bible, is the Mosaic Law superfluous (the answer is no)? What is the role of women in society (the answer is keep quiet)? How is the government to be treated (the answer is respect)? His argument is, if people are going to accept the bible to be correct as written, there's additional problems of hypocrisy. He points out that the conservative Christian community is going against the literal interpretation of the bible with regard to public policy (namely, women politicians, denying equal rights based on Mosaic Law, and disrespecting the government).
I'll have to get to the rest of article later. FWIW, though, I don't believe in a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of 66 books - some are poetic, some are prophetic, some are personal letters, some are letters written to an entire congregation, etc. So I read & interpret each book according to it's own style. :) But I will get to the details tomorrow. :)
You can justify these things to yourself, but you're an audience of one. The trick is justifying it to an audience the size of the American public. The justification you accept is loosing credibility as more information continues to be exposed, and as people actually read the bible rather than assume what they've been taught is reliable. He thinks, I think, that by reading his article fundamentalists will slowly, contritely, nod their heads and see that they've been misled, misguided, and mistreating others because of it. It's one reason I find his article patronizing and insulting. I think that by reading his article, conversations like this will continue, and people who hold traditional stories and beliefs accepted as true by virtue of faith will start to demand some support, some evidence, if they are to continue believing them.
-
As I'm reading through it now, I've just read past the parts where he shows the specific problems with accepting the bible as an accurate account of history with regard to the creation of the earth, Noah's experience on the ark, Goliath's killer, the existence of dragons, as well as supporting a cultural moral code based on whether or not Jesus' teaching supersedes the Mosaic law, the role of women in society, the expectation of behavior towards government authority, conflict resolution, and so on. He provides specifics on each of these, pointing to the discrepancies found in the bible itself. One who reads the bible literally has a difficult task to rationalize which literal interpretation is meant to be accepted as is, and which is to be accepted as directed towards another culture in another time, or symbolic altogether. I think this is his main point - one cannot read the bible literally and be trusted to understand the real message. I don't agree with it for a number of reasons, but he certainly isn't picking at things that aren't really there. He's shining a light on stuff that is there, but many people don't know because their theology is learned through hearsay.
Okay...Noah.
The Bible (Old Testament especially) often repeats itself. Whether that's for clarity, emphasis, etc. I don't know. Probably it depends on the passage... God telling Noah to do something in chapter 6 and Noah doing it...and then repeating a part of that 'doing it' later on with more details...that's pretty typical of the storytelling style in the OT. So there's no contradiction there. And the second account adds the fact that the "clean" animals were to be taken into the ark by sevens. This isn't a contradiction. It's a storytelling style.
Same thing with the getting-onto-the-ark repeats...
And Noah & his family are on the ark longer than the rain rains bc they wait for the flood to go down before they get off. :)
Any manuscripts that mention Elhanan killing Goliath (can't speak for which translations are among the 'many' the author cites) are a scribal 'typo.' That should be obvious since II Chronicles (a parallel account) tells us that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. This is a great example of the type of variations between manuscripts. The vast majority are obvious scribal errors on really minor points (not major doctrines) that are easily resolved.
Isaiah 51 (Rahab & the dragon and all) is very figurative. Very. On a cursory reading (haven't studied this passage recently :)) I would say the dragon is referring to Satan...not sure about Rahab. Doubt that's a name given to the dragon...but I could be wrong.
"God plays with a sea monster Leviathan" is just such an irreverent and unscholarly statement, I hate to even answer it...but Leviathan is probably something like plesiosaur. If you read the actual description in Job, it fits very nicely with a huge water-based dinosaur. Same thing with 'behemoth' also mentioned in Job. And the KJV has some weird translations of Hebrew animal words. If they didn't know what animal it was, they just guessed, I guess. :) But the Hebrew manuscripts are still there for us to look at. No, the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns, etc. I don't know any Christian who believes that. :)
Well, that's all I have time for tonight... Goodnight, Hive! :)
-
As I'm reading through it now, I've just read past the parts where he shows the specific problems with accepting the bible as an accurate account of history with regard to the creation of the earth, Noah's experience on the ark, Goliath's killer, the existence of dragons, as well as supporting a cultural moral code based on whether or not Jesus' teaching supersedes the Mosaic law, the role of women in society, the expectation of behavior towards government authority, conflict resolution, and so on. He provides specifics on each of these, pointing to the discrepancies found in the bible itself. One who reads the bible literally has a difficult task to rationalize which literal interpretation is meant to be accepted as is, and which is to be accepted as directed towards another culture in another time, or symbolic altogether. I think this is his main point - one cannot read the bible literally and be trusted to understand the real message. I don't agree with it for a number of reasons, but he certainly isn't picking at things that aren't really there. He's shining a light on stuff that is there, but many people don't know because their theology is learned through hearsay.
As to Creation, in Genesis 2, God makes a mist to keep the ground moist, bc there wasn't any rain as yet. That's not a contradiction to Him separating the "waters from the waters" and creating earth "in between"...and creating the seas in chapter 1.
In Genesis 2, God plants a garden (the Garden of Eden) as a special place for Adam & Eve. That's not a contradiction to vegetation being created before sun/moon/stars in chapter 1.
There is no contradiction between animals & plants being created before man in Genesis 2 and man being created after plants & animals in Genesis 1. This is just poor, poor writing. :(
There is no contradiction between God creating Adam & Eve in Genesis 1, and the more detailed account of how He did it in chapter 2.
That's just the Creation account. I can continue, but I'd better help dh with the laundry for now. :)
-
Yes, but it is confusing (or contradictory) with how I was taught about Jesus' birth, where the wise men visit Jesus right after birth in the manger. In Matthew the wise men visit at some undetermined time later, when Jesus is in a house.
This is not something I am deeply familiar with. I learned the story as a child and have heard it many times since, but only as a part of Christmas celebrations. After I read the article in Newsweek, I looked through Luke and Matthew to see what the author was talking about because I was curious. I see what he is referring to, that there are two accounts of Jesus' birth, with many similar details, but some different. He simply chose certain details from both Gospels to tell the story a different way than the story many are most familiar with. I found this to be a very interesting way to highlight how some of the stories many people know from the bible are actually a compilation from different sections. In the same way, the various translations each introduce changes from the original text.
The tone of the article was off-putting, but I found some of his thoughts about mistranslations and sections not found in the original Greek text to be thought-provoking.
But you recognize that the confusion comes from not having read the actual text... A lot of people believe wrong things about the Bible (the wise men at the Nativity scene is one example) because they haven't actually read the Bible.
I remember the first time I read the book of Exodus for myself and I realized some of the details I must have gotten from watching The Ten Commandments weren't there. :) I had this idea that Moses and Ramses were rivals...and that Moses' mother sent the basket floating down the river (instead of setting it in the bulrushes). :)
But (to get back to the Nativity) that's different than saying that the stories contradict one another. When he says there's 'no manger' 'no frankincense, myrrh, and gold' etc., and those details actually are in the text... I just don't get it. (I mean, I do. Some people just are out to rip the Bible to shreds.)
Some of the things he says about mistranslations are true. I'm not one to say the KJV is a perfect translation. :)
Some of the things he says are just not true.
The Trinity, for instance, is not stated explicitly in any single verse in the Bible. But that's not some big dark secret Christians are hiding from the rest of the world. :) We get the doctrine of the Trinity from the entire Bible taken as a whole. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each said to have created the world. Also, they are all involved in raising Jesus from the dead.
And the deity of Christ likewise does not depend upon any single verse or passage. It is throughout the Bible, in both English and Greek. :)
Yes, there were scribal errors and yes there are fragmented portions of Greek manuscripts that span a large period of time...but the differences between manuscripts constitute a tiny portion the whole, and the differences are minor - mostly obvious - not major doctrinal contradictions.
Sorry if that was more info than you wanted. :) Anyway, I hope the article makes more people curious to actually read the Bible for themselves! :)
-
“The actual design of Palestinian homes (even to the present day) makes sense of the whole story,†Paul writes. “Most families would live in a single-room house, with a lower compartment for animals to be brought in at night, and either a room at the back for visitors, or space on the roof. The family living area would usually have hollows in the ground, filled with straw, in the living area, where the animals would feed.â€
Herein lies the debate about the manger.
Interesting. I will have to do some reading about this...the idea of a manger in the living room?
Even if, I don't see a contradiction between Matthew & Luke's gospel accounts. But I suppose this would make the 'house' theory possible. And the first article does imply that Jesus being born in a house negates the idea of a manger.
Thanks for the food-for-thought. :)
-
But most agree that that was not immediately after birth and was probably even over a year later.
Yes. This. Because that verse is from Matthew. And in the same passage, when Herod sets out to have Jesus killed via the deaths of all Bethlehem babies in the same age bracket, he orders all infants 2 years & younger to be killed. So there's plenty of time here for Joseph & Mary to have moved to a house. Doubt they spent very long in that stable. :)
-
I have read previously that the word used for where he was born was the same word for where the Last Supper took place. More of an upper room, likely a relative's house. Also that inns were found only in heavily populated areas. I, by no means, know if that is correct. I just know I've read that before.
Luke 2 says (three times) that Jesus was laid in a manger.
While there is some question about the Greek word for "inn" (could mean guesthouse), there is no debate (that I know of) for the word "manger." And the Bible says that Mary laid Jesus in the manger "because there was no room for them in the inn."
So whatever the inn/guesthouse was, that was not where Jesus was born. He was born in a place where the manger was readily accessible, hence the stable/Nativity scenes.
I totally agree that a lot of traditional conceptions of the Nativity are unbiblical. But, once again, this guy's issue is not with "traditional" Christmas stories...he's out to demonstrate how the entire Bible is a farce because of supposed "obvious" contradictions like this one. And I just don't see where he's getting it from. :)
-
While a great many of the facts in the article I was already familiar with, the opinion wrapped around the facts made it feel very slanted against Christianity.
Reading this article was a very.....interesting experience. I absolutely hate when journalists present opinion pieces like straight up reporting. I also can understand why non-Christians who have dealt up close with some segments of the American church are frustrated at the anti-intellectualism that festers in places and makes biblical scholarship practically into a joke.
So I am left with the sense that the article had a lot of facts without being fair to Christians as a whole, or even a good number of evangelicals, while still feeling that this author's perception of Christianity and biblical scholarship is something that is understandable to me as a no-longer-evangelical/fundamentalist-Christian.
This. I was trying to figure out how to say that. Thanks. :)
I would disagree that the article has a lot of facts...but I appreciate that you recognize the bias here. I agree that there are brands of Christianity that are anti-intellectual...we might disagree about which brands. :)
-
Okay, on second thought, I won't spend my evening debunking something that is no-contest. :)
But if anyone has questions, I'm sure there are plenty of us here more than willing to try & answer.
-
I just lost the whole next post I was typing. :(
I can work on it again after I put my kids down...
Forty-two, this author has serious beef with the Bible - from cover to cover, not just the Christmas story.
Anyhow...I'll try again later. :)
-
There are so many misstatements in this article it's going to be hard to get through. :( I'm halfway, and I've just got to stop to highlight this:
Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. His father, Joseph, had been planning to divorce Mary until he dreamed that she’d conceived a child through the Holy Spirit. No wise men showed up for the birth, and no brilliant star shone overhead. Joseph and his family then fled to Egypt, where they remained for years. Later, they returned to Israel, hoping to live in Judea, but that proved problematic, so they settled in a small town called Nazareth.
Not the version you are familiar with? No angel appearing to Mary? Not born in a manger? No one saying there was no room at the inn? No gold, frankincense or myrrh? Fleeing to Egypt? First living in Nazareth when Jesus was a child, not before he was born?
You may not recognize this version, but it is a story of Jesus’s birth found in the Gospels. Two Gospels—Matthew and Luke—tell the story of when Jesus was born, but in quite different ways. Contradictions abound. In creating the familiar Christmas tale, Christians took a little bit of one story, mixed it with a little bit of the other and ignored all of the contradictions in the two. The version recounted above does the same; it uses parts of those stories from the two Gospels that are usually ignored. So there are two blended versions and two Gospel versions. Take your pick.
So...where in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in a house? I can't see where the author is finding his information...but it's certainly not from the Bible.The book of Luke tells the story of Jesus' birth in the stable in Bethlehem, of the 'no room in the inn', of Joseph & Mary living in Nazareth before His birth, etc.Matthew tells the details of the wise men visiting (possibly some years after Jesus was born b/c Herod orders his soldiers to kill all babies 2 years & younger), of Joseph & Mary fleeing to Egypt & eventually returning to Nazareth, etc.How are these details so obviously contradictory? What are "all the contradictions" I'm ignoring?I just find it so irritating that the author is lumping all "Christians" together, misconstruing what "we" believe and distorting what the Bible says, while trying to make the point that "we" do the same?!?!Okay. I'm calm. :) -
So...dd is 'graduating' from kindergarten this year... She's disappointed at not having an official 'graduation ceremony' and all that...so I'm putting a list together of things we can do to make the end of school special for her. I've got the 'print-a-certificate' and 'go-out-for-ice-cream' and all that...
I'm really wondering if anyone has any ideas for something I could have her actually perform (music, poetry, recitations, etc.). When ds6 graduated from K, he sang a bunch of songs with his class, read from the Bible, and they did a little play. We'll most likely be doing this at home for a small group of friends & family.
Right now I'm thinking...
Read from the Bible
Sing a song?
Play something on the piano
Quote a poem?
Curious what y'all are doing or have done with your K'er. :)
-
Merry Christmas, Hive! :)
-
I initially thought it was a publicity stunt. But I can't believe that a company would release their own employees' SS numbers and other personal information. And although I'm not totally convinced that NK is behind it, I want to hope that the FBI experts are competent enough to be able to figure out if it was a publicity stunt.
But I don't doubt for one second that Sony is scrambling to do everything they can to capitalize on the situation. ;)
My thoughts exactly.
-
I probably shouldn't be so weirdly fascinated by this whole thing, but . . . I am. :tongue_smilie:
Me, too. :)
I am so not a fan of Hollywood...
But I'm a bigger not-a-fan of North Korea. :)
-
So...now Sony is showing the movie...
And NK has been experiencing internet blackout...
-
The spirit is like wind. (John 3:8)
The spirit is like breathe. It gives the person or animal life. (Ezekiel 37:9; 14)
Every person has the 'spirit of man' in them (Eccl 3:21. I quoted this one earlier. It differentiates between the 'spirit of man' and the 'spirit of the beast.' Other spirits include the 'unclean spirit' and the 'Holy Spirit')
An unsaved man has a dead spirit, but a living soul. If you have never been born again, you have this spirit in you, the 'spirit of man', but it is a dead spirit, it needs to be brought to life:
'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.' (John 3:5-7)
'And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;..' (Eph 2:1)
'let the dead bury their dead' (Luke 9:60)
I think someone said this earlier, but I'll repeat it. When man was originally made, God made him out of 'the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' (Gen 2:7). There is that word breath again.
After Adam, mankind was then born in the image of Adam, not God. (Gen 5:3). Do you remember when God said that Adam would surely die the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:17). Well as I understand it, he died spiritually that day. And henceforth mankind was born with a dead spirit in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins. And thus, the need to be reborn.
(Yes, I think we see it quite the same.)
I'm not sure if I can do this justice off the top of my head. It has been a while since I've studied it, so hopefully it comes back to me.
First of all there is a difference to those saints who died in Old Testament times. They still maintained their soul in a bodily formed, but were not given their new bodies until they were taken to heaven after the resurrection of Christ. Keep in mind the difference that those in the Old Testament were not 'born again'.
The body of Christ is in a different situation. A born again saint in the body of Christ has already been made alive and is already seated in heavenly places. They are just waiting to leave their fleshly body and get a glorified one. If a believer in this age dies before the rapture, they will go straight to heaven, but still must wait for their glorified body. We all get our new body at the same time.
'In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.' (1 Co 15:52)
And we won't know what it will be like until we get it:
'Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.' (1 John 3:2)
Also, study out what happened to Jesus after his resurrection. At first he goes to the lower parts of the earth. When he comes back up three days later and is seen by men they are not allowed to touch him. First he has to go back up to his Father. They can still see him, but not touch. When he reappears back on earth he eats with them, and invites them to touch him.
He says: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.' (Luke 24:39)
Thank you for answering. I think we agree. Only I have never considered an actual physical 'circumcision of the flesh.' I think I have always believed this to be more figurative. I see the flesh as a 'pull' towards sinful actions...the part of us that wants to rebel against God. Acc to Romans 6-8, the flesh and the spirit constantly war against each other...the one pulling me towards sin, and the other pulling me towards God. So, the Christian life is a continual choosing (a 'walk') of following one or the other of those 'pulls'.
-
My OBGYN told me it has to do with organs cutting off the umbilical cord - hence baby's blood supply.
I was really scared about sleeping on back after this...but my mom was shocked (she's had 5) when she heard. Said doctors never told her anything about that.
So...I do sleep on my back. And I've had four healthy babies. :)
-
I know you're not looking for cookies...but my kids have to make peanut butter blossoms every year (peanut butter cookie with a Hersheys kiss in the middle). That's the only real constant in this house. :)
-
Well I can explain it a bit further, just in case anyone is interested.
I believe that the soul is cut away from the flesh when a person is born again, so that our soul is then separated from our flesh. (This is the process of the spiritual circumcision), and it is what quickens (makes alive) the person spiritually. Before this, we are still spiritually dead in our sins, so our soul is still attached to our physical body.
'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:' (Col 2:11)
Our soul is in us until we die, which is why we can't see or touch it. And then when we die (our soul) leaves the flesh in the bodily form.
As I said, I know this isn't what you are after, as you want physical evidence of your soul. But I have presented it anyway. I have previously asked in an atheist group a couple of years back if they believed that they had a soul. I got a lot of responses, but I did not have anyone speak up and say that they didn't have one. It was as if no-one wanted to believe or freely admit that they had no soul.
Do you think that you want to believe that you have a soul?
Or are you willing to accept that you may not?
This is very interesting. :) How do you see the difference between spirit & soul?
Also curious how you figure in the idea of a glorified body after the resurrection? Is that something separate from the soul? (I believe the soul leaves the body in a sort of 'bodily form' at death...and then will be reunited with the body at the resurrection. Then God will glorify the bodies of those He has redeemed...)
-
The soul is who you are, separate from the flesh.
(The spirit of a person cannot be seen, it is described as wind in the Bible.)
A soul can be seen.
Revelation 6:9
'....I saw under the altar the souls'
A soul has a bodily form. A soul can wear clothes.
Revelation 6:10
'And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season'
A soul can thirst.
Psalm 63:1
'..my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is..'
A soul can feel pain.
Luke 16:24
'..have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
A soul can be lost.
Matthew 16:26
'For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' (Matthew 16:26)
[i know I'm just repeating what the Bible says, which isn't what you are after, but I'm pretty sure that you won't mind me adding this. It may prompt further discussion or insights.]
Just a thought to stir the pot... :)
The Hebrew & Greek words behind soul (in Koine Greek it's psyche) can mean many different things. Life, breath, wind, spirit, soul, etc. So (I believe) sometimes the Bible uses the word "soul" and it's referring to that immortal part of us that relates to the world around us... and sometimes it really is just talking about someone's physical life on this earth.
The context is usually crystal clear about which definition to use. But this is where some tend to take verses out of context and misconstrue what's being said.
I'd have to think to come up with an example...
-
We like this:
http://www.southernplate.com/2011/01/slow-cooker-fiesta-chicken-rice.html
Chicken breast
cream of chicken soup
corn
black beans
salsa
taco seasoning
rice
cheese (opt.)
It's simple - just dump & cook. I keep the ingredients on hand for a quick go-to crockpot meal.
-
Thanks, all! :)
I'm not planning on starting this until after New Years (I'm not that crazy :) - and I don't have that kind of willpower). But I have a ton of ideas to go off of now.
Breakfast is huge. I'll work towards sticking with eggs & oatmeal...
And I like the idea of talking myself out of sweets until evenings. There's less chance of me binging on sugar after dh's home from work. ;)
-
How do you suppose a "dead in sin" soul can relate to God enough to be "made alive" in the first place? I'm trying to visualize this in my head. Is it like a spectrum of life, and at some point, one has enough life to catch God's attention, or is it more like an on/off switch - either one is dead or one is alive, no middle place? I hope that makes sense. I'm trying to visualize the mechanics of it. I blame Imgur!
ETA: I forgot about the soul/spirit distinction. Thanks for the reminder.
Well... The person with a dead spirit can't relate to God at all. Yes, kind of like an on/off switch. No middle place mentioned in the Bible. Just that we are dead. And then God makes us alive.
No, we don't have 'life' to catch God's attention... We exercise faith in Christ's substitutionary (for-me) death on the cross - and God regenerates (makes alive) our spirits. From that moment, I have been "born again", am a child of God/have a relationship with Him.
The Misunderstood and Mistranslated Bible
in The Chat Board
Posted
Sure. I mean, if that's the way you want to see it, I don't know that's it's worthwhile for me to continue. I think if someone wants to make the point that the Bible is full of contradictions, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove where those contradictions lie.
I'm not out to convince you that it's true, just that no one should definitively say it's full of errors based on evidence like that.
He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...
It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't. :)
If you have any specific questions about anything else from the article, please feel free to ask. I do love discussing the Bible...and I know I'm not the only one on the Hive. :)