text:
An aura of excitement and predictability surrounds the president's annual State of the Union speech: A few days of hyped drama and TV punditry builds to a political Woodstock featuring generals, justices, senators, cabinet secretaries and Congress, all under one roof. Up in the balcony, the First Lady plays host to a few iconic, symbolic taxpayers who recently shared a heroic moment of fame with America.
Environmentalists are on higher-alert than normal this year, after President Obama made a sweeping inaugural promise to tackle climate change, an issue he'd largely avoided during his first term.
If the president reprises that theme in tonight's speech, he'll join a long list of predecessors to warn that we're leaving a mess for future generations. And if past is prologue, the green talk and pageantry may be the only things delivered on the president's lofty words.
Let's take a look back.
In 1993, Bill Clinton assailed the failure of the federal Superfund toxic waste cleanup program. For more than a decade, attorneys and consultants drained off Superfund dollars, while few toxic sites got an actual cleanup. "I'd like to use that Superfund to clean up pollution for a change and not just pay lawyers," Clinton told Congress and the nation.
Twenty years later, Environmental Protection Agency still runs a gauntlet of insurers, politicians, angry neighbors and, of course, polluters who are less than anxious to help pay for cleanup. More than 1,300 polluted sites remain on the Superfund list, while less than 400 "cleaned" sites have been de-listed. The lawyers are still getting paid.
In his second inaugural, Clinton gave a nod to climate change using language that presaged Obama's inaugural speech. Failure to act "would put our children and grandchildren at risk," he said. Since then, the United States opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, increased its fossil fuel consumption, and saw greenhouse gas legislation crash and burn in 2010.
Ronald Reagan's first State of the Union address hit hard at the "incomprehensible" size of America's nearly $1 trillion debt. While laying out an ambitious, pro-business plan to roll back regulation, he assured Congress that "we have no intention of dismantling the regulatory agencies, especially those necessary to protect environment and assure the public health and safety."
By the time he left office eight years later, the EPA and Interior Department were weakened and demoralized, their initial leaders disgraced by scandal. Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund, told the New York Times that Reagan's team "accepted the weakest possible rules to protect the environment." Did the budget-cutting and deregulation bring down that "incomprehensible" debt? It grew by 188 percent during Reagan's two terms.
Reagan and Richard Nixon both used the annual speech to decry partisanship in environmental politics. "Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense," said Reagan in 1984. Fourteen years earlier, Nixon had said, "Restoring Nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. "
However sincere Reagan and Nixon's conciliatory remarks were, they didn't give the lie to their own words, we all did: In the 1980 Congressional scorecard for the League of Conservation Voters, there was no gaping canyon between how Democrats (54 percent) and Republicans (34 percent) voted. By 2011, the environmental voting gap had grown: 91 percent for Democrats against the Republicans' 11 percent.
Both George H.W. Bush and his son touted "clean coal technology" in their State of the Union speeches. Despite lavish public and private investments and a barrage of relentlessly optimistic TV ads from the coal industry, there has been little real advancement. FutureGen, an Energy Department pilot program to capture and store coal-plant emissions, has spent billions with virtually nothing to show for it.
The younger Bush delivered a stunner in his 2006. The second generation oilman declared that America was "Addicted to Oil" and proposed a 22 percent hike in clean energy research. To drive the point home, he visited DOE's National Renewable Energy Labs a month later.
But all the President's advance men overlooked something: NREL was reeling from a $28 million budget shortfall and had just announced 32 staff layoffs. To save the photo op, DOE located several million dollars and restored the jobs. When the visit ended, so did any Administration gestures toward clean energy. By the time Bush left office, "Drill Baby Drill!" was a Republican rallying cry.
It wasn't always this way. More than a century ago, when the State of the Union address was a written "Message to Congress," Teddy Roosevelt thought big-picture and delivered.
In 1901, TR sent a 20,000-word Message, devoting 10 percent of it to the protection of forests, streams and the establishment of wildlife preserves. Citing haphazard and unrestrained development in rural America, he said "the forest and water problems are perhaps the most vital internal questions of the United States." Roosevelt dedicated the first National Wildlife Refuge less than two years later, and he formed the U.S. Forest Service in 1905.
Perhaps more than any President in the past century, Lyndon Johnson's annual good intentions were most frequently turned into action, policy, and law. He spoke about parks, protection of species, clean air and clean water. All advanced during LBJ's Presidency and during the Nixon years that followed, thanks in large part to a national awakening on environmental issues. Most remarkable is a 1965 reference in Johnson's "Special Message to Congress" – a follow-up to his broadcast speech: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."
By the late 1980s, the United States began to come to grips with the radioactive issue, launching a massive cleanup of nuclear weapons sites and halting nuclear weapons tests, while commercial nuclear power's ambition was halted by its own safety and financial risks. After 48 years, we'll still waiting on carbon dioxide.
With the impacts of climate change staring us in the face – from the melting Arctic to the parched Farm Belt to the devastated beach towns in New York and New Jersey – it's hardly the time for Barack Obama to uphold the sad presidential tradition of ignoring green intentions.
"I think he is serious about making an effort," former Obama aide Billy Pizer told Politico last month. "Real estate in major speeches is valuable."
It is indeed valuable, Billy. But history shows that empty promises in sweeping speeches are a dime a dozen.
Related on MNN:
- 6 eco-friendly presidents
- Five good green ideas from the U.S. government
- 10 Republicans from another era who helped the environment
This story was originally written for The Daily Climate and was republished with permission here. Daily Climate is an independent, foundation-funded news service covering climate change. Contact editor Douglas Fischer at dfischer [at] DailyClimate.org


text:
Similar to any league around the world, an underlying storyline of any CONCACAF Champions League game surrounds the refereeing. Historically, CCL referees have provided questionable calls and have done few favors for MLS teams playing away from home (i.e. LA last Thursday).
So which official will man the field when the Dynamo and Santos Laguna take the field Wednesday at Estadio Corona? That honor goes to Suriname official Enrico Wijngaarde. Wijngaarde will be joined by Ricardo Louisville (SUR) and Egbert Paesch (ARU) as his assistant referees and Rudolph Angela (ARU) as his fourth official.
Wednesday will be the second time that Wijngaarde will have officiated a Dynamo match. Wijngaarde officiated the 2008 SuperLiga match between the Dynamo and Chivas de Guadalajara at Robertson Stadium. Chivas won the match 1-0 and six yellow cards were handed out.
Most recently, Wijngaarde officiated matches in the CONCACAF U-20 Championship including the final between Mexico and the United States. In that match, the 39-year-old official handed out five yellow cards and one red card.
Also, it should be noted that in 10 of the previous 19 matches in which he has served as the center referee, Wijngaarde has handed out a minimum of four yellow cards.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Controversial comic Chris Rock incurred the wrath of Gabourey Sidibe's father at a recent awards luncheon – after the funnyman groped the actress as she collected a prize.
The "Precious" star, who is nominated for a Best Actress Oscar at Sunday's Academy Awards, was honored at the third annual Essence Black Women in Hollywood event in Los Angeles on Thursday.
But she got a shock as she stood up to make her way to the stage – when Rock grabbed her behind with both hands.
Despite shaking off the "Everybody Hates Chris" creator with a playful slap, Sidibe admits her father was furious over the incident.
She tells ETOnline, "As I go up to get my award in a room where my dad is, because he's one of my dates, Chris Rock grabbed my butt with both of his hands – and then I slapped him back. I didn't think too much of it at all, but my dad was super p**sed."
And she quips, "Some dudes gotta have it – it's my own fault for being too damn fine."


text:
1/2 whole chicken (chop to small pieces )
2 carrot (peel and cut 1-2 inch)
2 tbsp mirin
2 tbsp soy sauce
1 tbsp chicken bouillon powder
1 tbsp sake
1 tsp sugar *optional*
1 tbsp cooking oil
2 clove garlic (peel and sliced)
2 stalks scallion ( cut 2 inch)
1 tbsp sesame oil *optional*
1:Clean and remove giblets,neck and feathers.Cut the whole chicken to small pieces with cleaver.You can use ready cut thighs or drumsticks instead of whole chicken.
2:Prepare wok at high heat with oil,add in garlic,fry until light golden brown,then add in cut chicken and carrot,reduce heat to medium.Let's simmer for 5 minutes with lid to cover the wok for faster cooking.Remove lid,add in soy sauce,mirin,sugar ,chicken bouillon powder and sake,mix well and cook for another 5 minutes or longer or until the meat is tender.
3:Check the seasoning ,sprinkle with cut scallion and sesame oil before remove from heat.Dish out and serve warm with rice.
This dish is easy and simple to cook.It's a Japanese comfort food which you can cook yourself instead of ordering at Japanese restaurant.If you don't have sake replace with chinese cooking wine.


text:
Profoto Pro-10
The world's fastest flash
Get the speed to exceed with the Pro-10
Pro-10 isn't just fast. It's record-breaking. Our flagship flash can achieve a breathtakingly short flash duration of up to 1/80,000s. But even more impressive, both flash duration and recycling time are extremely short higher up the power scale than with any other flash. The unique combination of power and speed changes everything.
Product name
Pro-10 2400 Air TTL
Product number
Recommended for
High volume studio photography
Popular applications
Fashion, Action, High Speed
Max energy
2400 Ws
Energy range
11 f-stops (2.4-2,400 Ws)
Energy control increments
1/10 or full f-stops
Recycling time
0.02-0.7 s (quick burst up to 50 flashes per second)
Flash mode settings
Freeze (shortest flash duration) or Normal (color balanced) mode
Flash duration t0.5
Normal mode: 1/800 s (2,400 Ws) - 1/12,000 s (2.4 Ws)
Freeze mode: 1/1,000 s (2,400 Ws) - 1/80,000 s (2.4 Ws)
Flash duration t0.1
Normal mode: 1/400 s (2,400 Ws) - 1/6,500 s (2.4 Ws)
Freeze mode: 1/600 s (2,400 Ws) - 1/17,500 s (2.4 Ws)
Energy stability
± 1/20 f-stop
Color temp stability
Normal mode: ±100 K over range. ±50 K flash to flash
Freeze mode: ±1500 K over range. ±150 K flash to flash
F-stop @ 2m / 100 ISO
Selectable settings
Max, Max Prop, Prop, Free, Off
Max power
2 x 500W
Operating range
Normal sync and remote control up to 300 m (1000 ft). TTL and HSS up to 100 m (330 ft).
USB 2.0 Type B port for firmware updates
Wire sync voltage
Compliant to ISO 10330 standard
Sync socket(s)
Input power supply
100-127 V / 200-240 V, 50/60 Hz (nominal)
Mains fuse requirement
Slow blow 16 A/ 230 V, 20 A/ 120 V
Fan cooling
Ready signals
Auto dumping
Photocell/IR-slave and switch
Digital display
Hi-resolution LCD display
21 cm / 8.3 in
29 cm / 11.4 in
30 cm / 11.8 in
13.2 kg / 29.1 lbs
Why choose the Pro-10?
Describing Pro-10 as fast would be an understatement. It is a record breaker in its capability to keep flash duration and recycling short across the full power range. It easily matches the fastest cameras and makes it easy to capture crisp, sharp images from a series of super-fast exposures.
With an 11 f-stop power range at your fingertips you'll find it easy to set the light you want. It's adjustable in 1/10 f-stop increments from 2.4 up to 2400Ws. And it's fully asymmetric 0-100% on both outlets, so you have independent control over each head. Everything you need to shoot with power and precision from shot to shot.
Pro-10 is advanced, not complicated. Its user interface is simple and intuitive with a few carefully selected controls. There are just three large rubberized dials and a high-resolution display. So when you're changing settings, it's easy to see, feel and find it, even in the dark. And its sleek minimal design looks good in black. Sometimes less is more.
AirTTL gives you more time and options to light your shot creatively. You can use it instead of a light meter, switch to manual mode and tweak your TTL settings to get the perfect exposure. And you can wirelessly control other lights up to a range of 300m, knowing they will fire every single time. Then you can focus on your art, not the technology.
With Profoto High-Speed Sync (HSS) it doesn't matter how bright the sun shines. It enables you to use your flash at shutter speeds up to 1/8,000s. So you can overpower the sun and shape your light even with large apertures in broad daylight.
Pro-10 is designed to shoot at high volumes with incredible color temperature consistency. Built with uncompromising engineering and craftsmanship, it's so tough, robust and durable, it'll probably still be performing at the highest level in 20 years' time.
Just as an artist needs paints and brushes, a photographer needs tools to shape light. Pro-10 enables you to combine its speed, power and control with 11 different compatible flash heads and over 120 light shaping tools. With all this at your disposal, your creative possibilities are truly limitless.
Speed to exceed Profoto Pro-10
The Profoto Pro-10, being the world's fastest flash, opens new doors to creative possibilities that were previously, quite simply out of reach. Being remarkably easy to use, delivering consistently outstanding performance spiced with TTL and HSS it allows you to freeze split moments in time and capture powder and liquid in unprecedented detail and clarity.
Pro-10 was developed from our 49 years of expertise in the industry to deliver the speed and power for you to break new ground in photography. Someone described it as a beast, but a beautiful one. True is that it will allow you to create images you never dreamed were possible. Now the only limits are the extent of your imagination. That is why we say the Pro-10 is the Speed to exceed.
Inside the making of the imageGet a glimpse into what it takes to create an amazing image
Having the confidence to know you can freeze anything pin sharp at the power you want opens up a whole new world of creative possibilities.
I would like to shoot images no one has ever imagined before
When the Pro-10 is firing at high speed, it's like being in a thunderstorm. The sound of the flash is so crisp, you know when you return to your screen you're going to have something that's pretty damn stunning.
Accessorize your Pro-10
The more lighting options you have, the more light shaping control and creativity you have at your disposal. The Pro-10 is part of Profoto's AirTTL system and offer a range of high-end lighting options, access to more than 120 light shaping tools and premium designed bags to get everything to location quickly and easily.


text:
Get Discovered!
Search Videos
Sort by:
LatestMost PopularRandom
Enjoy :)
Tags: bryan, adams
Audrey ♫ Taylor
Apr 16, 2011
97 views
Welcome toArk Music Factory
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Post your comments here: Lexi St. George - Dancing to the Rhythm
© 2020 Created by Ark Master.
Powered by
Badges |
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.


text:
Storage Efficiency versus Data Reduction
Visits (22337)
Wrapping up my week's theme of storage optimization, I thought I would help clarify the confusion between data reduction and storage efficiency. I have seen many articles and blog posts that either use these two terms interchangeably, as if they were synonyms for each other, or as if one is merely a subset of the other.
So why am I making a distinction on terminology here?
Data reduction is already a well-known concept among specific industries, like High-Performance Computing (HPC) and Business Analytics. IBM has the largest marketshare in supercomputers that do data reduction for all kinds of use cases, for scientific research, weather prediction, financial projections, and decision support systems. IBM has also recently acquired a lot of companies related to Business Analytics, such as Cognos, SPSS, CoreMetrics and Unica Corp. These use data reduction on large amounts of business and marketing data to help drive new sources of revenues, provide insight for new products and services, create more focused advertising campaigns, and help understand the marketplace better.
There are certainly enough methods of reducing the quantity of storage capacity consumed, like thin provisioning, data deduplication and compression, to warrant an "umbrella term" that refers to all of them generically. I would prefer we do not "overload" the existing phrase "data reduction" but rather come up with a new phrase, such as "storage efficiency" or "capacity optimization" to refer to this category of features.
IBM is certainly quite involved in both data reduction as well as storage efficiency. If any of my readers can suggest a better phrase, please comment below.
technorati tags: IBM, data reduction, storage efficiency, histogram, linear regression, thin provisioning, data deduplication, lossy, lossless, EMC, Centera, hash collisions, Information Archive, LTO, LTO-DC, SLDC, ALDC, compression, deduplication, Storwize, supercomputers, HPC, analytics


text:
Courtesy Alana De La Garza; Inset Michael Kovac/WireImage
It's a girl for Alana De La Garza!
The actress, 36, and husband Michael Roberts welcomed their second child on Sunday, July 7, she confirms to PEOPLE exclusively.
Daughter Liv Elena Roberts was born weighing 8 lbs., 8 oz. and measured 19 inches long.
"[The second I saw her] I was just overwhelmed with pure joy and love. I know it sounds clich , but that's exactly how I felt," De La Garza tells PEOPLE.
"It feels like our little family is complete. She's been here a week and I just can't imagine our lives without her."
De La Garza and Roberts are also parents to 2 -year-old son Kieran Thomas, who has been busy reveling in his role as big brother.
"He was so excited and in awe! He kept kissing her forehead and saying 'Baby sista's not in Mama's belly anymore!'" she says. "It was one of the sweetest things I've ever seen and most proud I've ever been."
In February, the former Law & Order star shared that she was expecting a daughter, later adding that her son was eager to meet his baby sister and had even developed a penchant for playing with his mama's pregnant belly.
"[Kieran] crawled in our bed to cuddle. A minute later I feel his little fingers poking my belly button. I gently move them and tell him to rest," De La Garza told Latina.
"Thirty seconds later, I feel him poking my belly again! I look over and say, 'Honey, what are you doing?' He looks up at me and whispers, 'I'm playing with the baby!' I melted."
– Lee Hernandez


text:
We are open daily 9:30-5:30 (Michigan Time/EST).
Up Coming U-Pick fruits:
June 23rd will be the first day for U Pick Sweet Cherries
2019 Harvest Festival
Harvest Festival Open Every Weekend 10:30-6:30 (Michigan Time/EST) . Harvest Festival Kick off 2019 August 31st
Please email us at email@example.com with any specific questions.
We look forward to seeing you this season! Jay Jollay, Farmer
Jollay Orchards is on Find up-to-date information or become a fan!
Jollay Orchards is a unique entertainment experience -- blending a working Orchard with Family Activities. With manicured U-pick Orchards and many activities to fill a day, your family will be delighted to play, learn and enjoy the season.
We have been perfecting the art of fruit growing since 1857. Over the last 150 years, our farm has grown and changed creating today's u-pick fruit experience.
Jollay Orchards is just 1 mile South of Grandpa's Cider Mill.
Located in the heart of Southwest Michigan's fruit-rich region, along the shores of Lake Michigan, Jollay Orchards offers the best in homegrown fruit.
Sweet Cherries Tart (pie) CherriesTree-Ripened Peaches & Juicy ApplesPumpkins - in every imaginable size!
Inside our farm market you will find a bakery with homemade treats. Try a fantastic Cider Donut or an Apple Pie, both signature items.
Choose from a wide variety of Jollay Orchards Jams & Jellies, Mustards, Salsas and BBQ Sauces. Shop other delicious gourmet treats and head out the picnic area to enjoy!
With tables and charcoal grills available for our guests, the picnic area is a great place to sit back and relax. Enjoy your treats from the market or bring your own picnic!
Offering U-pick fruit and family fun, our friendly staff cannot wait to introduce you to our "family friendly" farm. Please check the Picking Schedule link for U- Pick fruit and event updates.
© 1998-2019Jollay OrchardsAll rights reserved.
Scan the QR Codefor directions toJollay OrchardsColoma, Michigan
We look forward toyour visit! Pleasecall with questions:(269) 468 - 3075
Design ByLighthouse Colorprint(269) 428-7062


text:
Nicaragua's contentious presidential elections are already off to a rocky start as civil society groups and opposition parties move to block President Daniel Ortega's controversial candidacy for reelection.
Despite a constitutional ban prohibiting acting presidents and two-term office holders from seeking reelection, President Ortega on March 18 officially inscribed his candidacy for the 2011 elections. Ortega was president from 1985 to 1990, and reelected in 2006.
Supporters insist their leader's sixth consecutive bid at the presidency is legal, pointing to a 2009 ruling by a group of loyalist judges who determined that Article 147 of the Constitution is "inapplicable" because it violates Ortega's right to equal treatment under the law. The ruling was upheld by the Ortega-controlled Supreme Court last year.
IN PICTURES: Obama in Latin America
Representatives from all four opposition parties competing on next November's presidential ballot have announced they will be presenting legal challenges to Ortega's candidacy before the March 31 electoral calendar deadline. One group of 15 citizens – including a former attorney general and two former Sandinista guerrilla heroes – have already filed a challenge against Ortega's candidacy.
The citizen challenge to the president's candidacy also accuses the Supreme Electoral Council (CSE), headed by Ortega's family friend Roberto Rivas (whose term as electoral president expired more than six months ago yet remains in office under a presidential decree) of being "illegally and illegitimately constituted." If the CSE does not reject Ortega's candidacy, the citizen appeal reads, the electoral authorities "will become accomplices and coauthors in the violation of the Constitution, in addition to being usurpers."
The opposition Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC), Liberal Independent Party (PLI), Alliance for the Republic (APRE), and Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN) have all said they will file similar motions in the coming days, meaning all opposition parties will be participating in the elections under protest.
In addition to the legal motions against Ortega's candidacy, a group of civil society organizations calling themselves the Citizen's Union for Democracy have announced a nationwide march on Managua April 2 – the first massive opposition mobilization since 2009.
Orteguistas close ranks
Ortega's supporters, meanwhile, have started to mobilize in different parts of the country to defend their caudillo as "the only option" fit to lead Nicaragua, the second-poorest nation in the hemisphere. The Sandinistas argue that defending Ortega's candidacy is an issue of "national sovereignty" and that opposition, manipulated by outside forces, is trying to trick voters with "lies."
"The only leader for us, the youth, is Comandante Daniel Ortega and that's why we say no to foreign meddling," Sandinista Youth member Jahaira Aburto told state TV, while alleging US meddling.
US Ambassador Robert Callahan has said Washington is interested in clean and transparent elections with credible observation – something the CSE and Orteguista activists are trying to obstruct.
Ortega confidant Rafael Solís, a Supreme Court magistrate whose term expired last year but remains at his post under the same presidential decree, suggested this week that anyone who attempts to challenge the legality of Ortega's candidacy could face jail time for refusing to respect the high court's ruling.
Ortega's supporters have pointed to court rulings in Colombia and Costa Rica that allowed the reelection bids of Alvaro Uribe and Oscar Arias, respectively, as important "legal precedents."
A fight ahead
But jurists insist that's nonsense, and so too is the Sandinistas' attempt to claim legal precedent from other countries that have different political models and distinct constitutions. Former Supreme Court President Alejandro Serrano says no legal recourse afforded under the Constitution can be deemed illegal.
What is illegal, he argues, is Ortega's candidacy. And while the Ortega-controlled CSE is not expected to suddenly change its mind and uphold any of the challenges presented this week, Mr. Serrano expects that once the motions are shot down in Nicaragua they will be appealed instantly to the Inter-American Court.
Even within Ortega's ranks, however, there appears wariness. After acting Vice President Jaime Morales has declined to run again, sheepishly citing concerns about the constitutional ban against his candidacy, Ortega announced that his new running mate will be recently retired military Gen. Omar Hallesleven, who stepped down last year as Nicaragua's top military brass.
His inclusion has raised some concerns that Ortega intends to enlist the military in his political project and impose a more heavy-handed regime in the years ahead.
"We have won the peace at the cost of blood, and now we will defend it at all costs," Ortega said Friday.


text:
Charismatic Chaos - Part 4
Written by: MacArthur Jr., John Posted on: 04/02/2003
Category: Sermons
Source: CCN
The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, By John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 90-55, titled "Charismatic Chaos" Part 4. A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412.
I have made every effort to ensure that an accurate transcription of the original tape was made. Please note that at times sentence structure may appear to vary from accepted English conventions. This is due primarily to the techniques involved in preaching and the obvious choices I had to make in placing the correct punctuation in the article.
It is my intent and prayer that the Holy Spirit will use this transcription of the sermon, "Charismatic Chaos" Part 4, to strengthen and encourage the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Scriptures quoted in this message are from the New American Standard Bible.
Charismatic Chaos - Part 4
Copyright 1991 by John F. MacArthur, Jr. All rights reserved.
Tonight, we have the great privilege, I think, of looking at a subject that is important to all of us. I am not going to be dealing with a specific text, although we will cover a number of texts before we are through tonight. But I want to carry on our special study of "Charismatic Chaos," looking and evaluating the Charismatic movement from the Word of God, by focusing on the issue of interpreting the Bible. One of the things that allows for the Charismatic movement to continue, to move ahead, is that it is engaged in misinterpretation of Scripture. I know that is a strong thing to say, but it is true. The movement continues at really an amazing pace, not only in America but around the world. And as it moves and catapults itself along it does so at the expense of Scripture.
There is, in my judgment, very little understanding, in the Charismatic movement, of proper Bible interpretation. Much of what exists in the Charismatic movement could be eliminated with just some very simple straight forward basic understanding of how to properly interpret the Bible. It falls technically under the title "Hermeneutics." Hermenutics is a theologians word to explain the science of Bible interpretation. And Hermenutics is a crucial building block in discerning theology. In fact, the absence of Hermeneutics or misunderstanding of it feeds the Charismatic movement. Pentecostals and Charismatics tend to base much of their teaching on poor principles of Bible interpretation.
One of their own, a Pentecostal by the name of Gordon Fee, has written this,
Pentecostals, in spite of some of their excesses, are frequently praised for recapturing for the Church her joyful radiance, missionary enthusiasm, and life in the Spirit. But they are at the same time noted for bad Hermenutics. First, their attitude towards Scripture regularly has included a general disregard for scientific exegesis and carefully thought out Hermenutics. In fact, Hermenutics has simply not been a Pentecostal thing. Scripture is the Word of God and is to be obeyed. In place of scientific Hermenutics there developed a kind of pragmatic Hermenutics. Obey what should be taken literally--spiritualize, allegorize, or devotionalize the rest. Secondly, it is probably fair and important to note that in general, the Pentecostal's experience has preceded their Hermenutics. In a sense, the Pentecostal tends to exegete his experience.
This is not, as I said, the appraisal of someone hostile to the movement, but the appraisal of one who is himself a Pentecostal. His assessment is "right on." You only have to watch the typical Charismatic television program to see exactly what he is talking about.
You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.
At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible.
Perhaps you have heard the familiar story of the man who wanted guidance about a major decision. He decided to close his eyes, not knowing where to look, wanted God to answer him. In the dilemma, he open his Bible, put his finger down to get guidance from whatever verse his finger happened to land on. His first try brought him to Matthew 27:5, "Judas went out and hanged himself." Thinking that verse was really not much help, he decided to try again. This time his finger landed on Luke 10:37, "Go thou and do likewise." Still undeterred and not ready to give up he tried it a third time and his finger landed on John 13:27, "What thou doesn't, do quickly." Now I certainly don't want to vouch for the authenticity of that particular account, but it does make an important point.
Looking for meaning in Scripture through some mystical process is the way to get an ill gotten theology. Looking for meaning in Scripture beyond the Historical, Grammatical, Logical understanding of the context is unwise and dangerous. It is possible, of course, to substantiate almost any idea or any teaching from Scripture if you take it out of its context and twist it around. I remember hearing about the preacher who didn't think women should have their hair up on their head, because a woman's hair should be down. And so he preached against what used to be called "Bobbed Hair"--women having their hair up on their heads. His text was "Top Knot Come Down," taken from Matthew 24 where it says, "Let those on the housetop not come down." So if you just pullout, if you just pull out exactly what you want you can probably get it. We laugh at that because it sounds so bizarre, but that is precisely the process that many are using to substantiate their experiences or to invent their theology.
Now, the task of hermenutics is to realize first of all that there is a God given meaning in Scripture apart from you or me or anybody else. Scripture means something, [even] if it means nothing to me. Understood? It means something if it means nothing to you. It means something if it means nothing to anybody. It means something in itself and that meaning is determined by God the author, not by one who is going through some kind of mystical experience. The interpreter's task, then, is to discern that meaning; to discover the meaning of the text in its proper setting; to draw the meaning out of the Scripture, rather than to read one's meaning into it. The importance of careful Biblical interpretation can hardly be overstated. We spend three or four years at the Master's Seminary trying to teach men how to do this, because it is the heart and soul of effective ministry. In fact, I would go so far as to say, misinterpreting the Bible is ultimately no better than disbelieving it.
You say, "What do you mean by that?" Well, what good does it do to believe that the Bible is God's final and complete word if you misinterpret it? Either way, you miss the truth. Right? It is equally serious, along with disbelieving the Bible, to misinterpret it. Interpreting Scripture to make it say what it was never intended it to say is a sure road to division, error, to heresy, and to apostasy. In spite of all of the dangers of misinterpreting the Scripture, today we have these casual people who approach the Scriptures whimsically, without any understanding of the science of interpretation and make it say whatever they would like it to say. Perhaps you have been in one of those Bible studies where you go around the room and everybody tells you what they think the verse means. Or, worse than that, "Well to me, this verse means so and so." In the end what you get is a pooling of ignorance, unless somebody knows what it means apart from them. The truth is that it doesn't matter what a verse means to me; it doesn't matter what it means to you; it doesn't matter what it means to anybody else; it doesn't matter if it means anything to anybody else. All that matters is, "What does it mean? What did God intend to say?"
Every verse has intrinsic meaning apart from any of us and the task of Bible study is to discern the true meaning of Scripture. That's why I can come to you week after week, month after month, year after year, and explain to you the meaning of the Word of God apart from any personal experience I'm having. That's irrelevant. The task of the interpreter is to discern the meaning of Scripture. In 2 Timothy 2:15, it says "Be diligent, or study to present yourself approved to God as a workman who doesn't need to be ashamed," because he's handling accurately the Word of Truth. If you don't handle it accurately, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. And if you are going to handle it accurately you have to be diligent; you have to work hard at it. Clearly, handling Scripture involves both of those things--hard work and diligence. It must be interpreted accurately, and those who fail to do that have reason to be ashamed.
Now there is so much to say about this that I can't give you a whole course in hermenutics. I teach some of that in the seminary as well as other professors, and I'm not intending to give you a seminary course. But, let me just suggest three errors that need to be avoided, that are not always avoided in contemporary interpretation. And they are very simple.
1. Do Not Make a Point at the Price of a Proper Interpretation.
It's like the preacher who said, "I have a good sermon if I could just find a verse to go with it." Do not prescribe your theology and then try to make the Bible fit it. You might have a good thought, a good idea. It even might be that the principle that you have in mind is true, but do not allow yourself to make the point at the price of a proper interpretation.
I remember reading years ago a good illustration of this found in the Jewish Talmud. One rabbi was trying to convince his people that the primary issue in life is concern for other human beings. That's good; a good point. We ought to be concerned about other human beings. But he wanted to illustrate it so he took them to the Tower of Babel, and he told them that the stones of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the building of that through the carrying of those stones illustrated his point. He said that the builders of the Tower were frustrated because they put material things first and people last.
Now, where is that in Genesis? "Well," he said, "As the Tower grew taller, it took a hod carrier (a stone carrier) many hours to carry a load of stone up. The higher it got the longer the walk." And he said, "If a man fell off the tower on the way down nobody cared because you only lost a man--not the bricks. But if he fell off on the way up, they mourned because the bricks were lost. And that," said the Rabbi, "Is why God confused their language, because they failed to give priority to human beings over bricks!"
Now, none of that can be found in Genesis 11. None of that can be found in the Bible. In fact, it totally skews the meaning of Genesis 11. It is true people are more important than bricks, but that is not the point of the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11 says absolutely nothing about the importance of people or bricks. The point is, God is more important than idols, and God will judge idolatry.
I remember being at a Bible Conference in Wisconsin one time. And I got into this Bible Conference with another well known preacher, and we were preaching every night. And one day we were eating lunch and I said, "What are you going to preach on tonight?" He said, "I am going to preach on the Rapture of the Church." I said, "Really, the Rapture of the Church. Great!" What's your text?" He said, "John 11." I said, "What?" He said, "John 11." "I said, "John 11? The Rapture of the Church isn't even in John 11." He said, "You wait and see tonight." I said, "Fine, fine." That night he preached on the Rapture from John 11. That's the resurrection of Lazarus. He allegorized it; Lazarus was the Church, Martha was the Old Testament saints, and Mary was the tribulation saints. And he got this thing going. And the people were just sitting their going, "Deep, deep!" You know they were just thinking this is the profoundest thing. They couldn't find it anywhere. They thought he was going deeper than they had capability to go. And afterwards, he said to me, "Had you ever seen that in John 11?" To which I replied, as kindly as I could, "No one has ever seen that in John 11!" And he took it as a compliment! The next night he got up and said, "John MacArthur told me, 'That no one but me had ever seen that in John 11.'"
Now, I don't want to argue with the Rapture of the Church, but I will argue that the Rapture of the Church is not in John 11. And if you are going to make John 11 say something that is true, then you are just as likely to make John 11 say something that what? Isn't true. That is not the way you approach Scripture. God has not hidden His truth from us but His meaning is not always instantly clear; it demands hard work. That's why in 1 Timothy 5:17 it says, "Those elders that labor in the Word and doctrine are worthy of double honor." Because it's hard work. That's why God has given teachers to the Church; so that we can work hard in understanding God's Word correctly, instructing people in the Scriptures through persistent conscientious labor in the Word.
Now, today we have, frankly, a lack of respect for the work of gifted theologians, a lack of respect for the hard work of gifted expositors who have spent years studying and interpreting Scripture. In fact, that lack of respect tends to be somewhat Charismatically characteristic. They tend to sort of look at all of us that way. I think I read to you the letter from the lady who said, "Your problem is, you're too much into the Bible. Throw away your Bible and stop studying." You see Charismatics place more emphasis on letting people in the congregation say whatever they think Jesus is telling them the verse means, than to listen to what one writer calls, "Airy Fairy Theologians." There is a vast difference, by the way, between the whimsical "kitchen table" interpretations of laymen, and the teaching of skilled men who work very hard to rightly divide the Word.
I heard a radio interview with a Charismatic woman pastor. She was asked how she got her sermons up. She replied, "I don't get them up--I get them down. God delivers them to me." That's an all too familiar thing. I can promise you that God has never delivered one to me. I haven't "gotten them down," I had to "get them up." Some people even believe its unspiritual to study. After all, some say, taking another verse out of context, "Didn't Jesus say, 'For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.'" So you just go into the pulpit and whatever comes into your mind you say? And that is why they invent their theology even as they speak. Because they have no idea what's going to be said until they hear it. We should be greatly concerned about this ad-lib approach. You never, ever make a point, true or false, at the price of a proper interpretation. Otherwise, you are the final authority and not the Word of God.
2. Don't Spiritualize or Allegorize the Text.
Some people think the Bible is a fable to teach whatever you want to get across. A myriad of illustrations of this, but I remember back when Jerry Mitchell was on our staff and a young couple came into him for counseling--marriage counseling. He began to talk with them and after about 30 minutes, he said, "You'd been married only 6 months and you are already on the edge of a divorce? Why did you ever get married? You're miles apart." "Oh," said the husband, "it was a sermon that the pastor preached in our church." "What was the sermon?" "Well, he preached on the walls of Jericho." "Jericho? What does that have to do with marriage?" "Well, God's people claimed the city, marched around it seven times and the walls fell down." And he said, "If a young man believed God had given him a certain girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times, and the walls of her heart would fall down." "That's what I did and we got married." "That can't be true," he said. "Your kidding, aren't you?" I remember him saying that. "You got to be kidding!" "No, it's true. And there were many other couples who got married because of the same sermon." Some people believe their marriages were made in heaven; that one was made in an allegory, and a bad one at that.
That's the kind of interpretation that has gone on since the early days of the Church [and] continues today, especially in the Charismatic movement. I remember listening to a series on the Book of Nehemiah. The whole purpose of the Book of Nehemiah, by this Charismatic preacher was to teach Charismatic doctrine. Jerusalem walls were in ruin and that was representative of the broken down walls of human personality. Nehemiah was the Holy Spirit. The King's pool was the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And the mortar between the bricks was tongues. And what Nehemiah is teaching, is the Holy Spirit wants to come, rebuild your broken walls through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tongues.
I had an opportunity to talk to that preacher about that and we had an interesting conversation. I tried to show him that, that was nothing but the invention of his own imagination--read from the New Testament back into the Old but never the intention of Nehemiah. To which he agreed. That kind of preaching is a form of "Hucksterism." And as I said, you may come up with a truth that you teach, but if you spiritualize the text to do it, then you legitimize spiritualization of any text, which leaves you with any fanciful conclusion.
For the correct approach, you probably need to go to Jesus and remember when He was walking on the road to Emmaus, He said, (Luke did), "That beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets he explained to them the things concerning Himself in the Scriptures." The word explain is hermeneuo (Greek) from which we get hermenutics. He carefully interpreted the Old Testament. He used hermenutics. He is the model of a teacher; He used sound interpretative methods.
So when we teach the Word of God; when we come to the conclusions that we come to, we want to be certain that we don't make severe errors:
1. By making points at the price of proper interpretations.
2. By somehow concocting or spiritualizing something that isn't there.
3. By superficial study. Superficial study is equally disastrous. Well, I have said enough about that not to have to say more.
Now, if that's the case, if we are to avoid doing that, how do we then interpret the Scripture? Let me give you five sound principles, all right? If you work through these you'll be on the way to rightly dividing the Word.
1. The Literal Principle
Principle number one we'll call the literal principle: the literal one. When we go to the Bible, this is so basic, we assume that God is talking to us in normal speech. Okay? Normal language. Normal, common, everyday communication. If fact, the theologians use to call it "Usus Loquendi" in the Latin, meaning, "The words of Scripture are to be interpreted the same way words are understood in ordinary daily use." If it says "horse," it means "horse." If it says, "He went somewhere, he went somewhere." If it says, "house," it means "house." If it says, "man," it means "man." And not everything is to be extrapolated off into some mystical spiritualization, allegorization, or whatever. It is literal. We understand Scripture, then, in the literal sense of language.
Now, there are figures of speech, there are simile, metaphor, hyperbole, onomatopoeia, whatever else, ellipsis, all of the figures of speech will be there. There may even be sarcasm, there may even be exaggeration as a device. There may be symbolism, such as the symbolism in the prophetic literature, which is obviously symbolic--clearly symbolic. But it is in the normal language of speech. We use symbols in our language. We say, "That man is as straight pine tree." Or, "That man is as strong as an ox." Well, we're using a symbol to make a literal point or statement. So then when we interpret the Bible, we are not hunting for some extrapolated mystical experience. Now, the Rabbis really got into this. They started to look for this long centuries ago, in fact, they use to say that (some of them said) Abraham had 318 servants. Nothing in the Bible says that, but they said, the secret meaning of the word Abraham is, in the Hebrew there is only three consonants in Abraham's name--Br, Ra, Hm. All the rest are vowels or breathing points. So, if you take the "Br, Ra, Hm," in his name, they had numerical equivalents in the Hebrew language, and add them up and you get 318! So the secret meaning is that he had 318 servants.
And they were into all that kind of stuff. And it even got more bizarre than that. There is occasionally, of course, figurative language in Scripture, as I said. But they are quite evident to us in the normal course of understanding language. Scripture was not written to puzzle people. It was not written to confuse them--it was written to make things clear to them. Even Parables are nothing more than illustrations. They are not riddles--they're illustrations, and in most cases Jesus explained their meanings. And in all cases He said that the meaning would be revealed to those who belong to Him by the Holy Spirit. So we can't abandon literal interpretation in favor of mystical, allegorical, metaphorical kinds of interpretation that discard all hope of achieving accuracy and coherence and throw us into some imaginary field.
I would venture to say that most Charismatic preaching is imagination run wild, proof-texted. They have, at least the popular part of it; I don't know whether "most" is a fair thing to say. But the popular part of it that I hear has much imagination and very little hermenutics. When you do not take the time to discern the literal meaning you are not serving Scripture by trying to understand it; then you are making Scripture your slave by molding it into whatever you want it to say. So we start with the literal principle, its literal language.
2. A Historical Principle
Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said clearly. Just like the Constitution: when it was written everybody understood what they meant. Here we are a few hundred years later trying to figure out what they meant. Why? Because history is different. Time has passed. Culture has changed. Circumstances have changed, and even language has changed. Modes of expression have changed. And so we are trying to get in touch with an old document and reconstruct what it must have meant to them when it was written. The same is true of the Bible, only it is much older than the Constitution. Any ancient document demands interpretation. And so what do we have to do to interpret it? We have to reset it into its historical context.
I am always amazed when I hear someone say, "John 3, 'You must be born of the water and the spirit,' means you must be born physically and you must be born spiritually." Have you heard that? And when a woman has a baby, there's water. We say, "The water breaks and the baby's born--that's born of the water. And spiritually, you are born of the Spirit." The problem is that in the Jewish context that wouldn't have been said, because the Jews didn't say "The water breaks." So what you've done is take an American colloquialism and read it into an ancient book that would mean absolutely nothing to those people. The question is, when He said, "You must be born of the water and the spirit"--what water would they think about? Right? What water was in the historical setting? The only water they would think about, in their Jewish context, particularly Nicodemus, would be that of Ezekiel who said, "The day is coming when God is going to wash you with clean water and put His spirit within you." And he would have put it into that context, the context of the New Covenant, not some colloquial American expression for human birth.
We must then understand the need for the historical principle. When Jesus walks in, for example, to the Temple courtyard, and said, "I am the light of the world." Why did He said that? Did He just go around saying strange things at strange moments? Just, "I'm the light of the world!" And somebody would say, "What did He say that for?" Or, why would He say, "I am the water of life, whoever drinks of this water, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water!" What is He talking about? Why does he outburst with these obtuse remarks? No, when He said, in John 8, "I am the light of the world," He was standing in the Temple courtyard and there was a huge candelabra that had been lit for eight straight days, in the feast of lights. And it had just gone out the day before and He walks into that very setting and says, in effect, 'This thing has gone out but I'm the light of the world and I never go out. And when He said, "I am the water of life," they were going through the Hallels, and they were celebrating the water that came out of the rock in the wilderness, and He said, "There was water then, but it was temporary. I am the water, and you drink this water--you'll never thirst but you will be a gushing well of water!"
Always the context gives the meaning. We've got to go back. What are the historical features? What is the characteristics of the city in which the believers lived who heard this? What was going on there? What were the politics? Who was ruling? What was the social pressures? What were the tensions, problems, and crisis that they were going through? What was the culture of the day? What was life like? What were customs like? I spend a great amount of my time researching all of that information so that when I get into the pulpit, I can make something clear. And I am always amazed, in fact, it happened a couple of times this morning, people came to me and said, "You know that passage is so clear--its so clear, I wonder why I have never seen it before?" The reason it was clear, the reason you understood it, is because I fed you the context in which it had its significance. It seemed simple and clear to you, a lot simpler than you know. It is simple to the one who was there and heard it the first time, but it is more complex to me, as I have to discern what they heard and how they heard it. That's part of the process.
To answer the cultural, historical questions, you use Bible dictionaries and books on history, and Bible handbooks, and commentaries, and books about Bible customs and so forth and so on.
3. Grammatical Principle
You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically. This is called syntax. Lexigraphy is the study of words, syntax is the study of the relationship of words. You have to learn about verbs and adverbs and adjectives and you have to learn about infinitives and participles and you have to learn about prepositions. You have to learn about conjugating verbs and you have to learn about cases for nouns and substantives. Ablative and genitive and all of that, accusative, nominative. You learn all of the structure of language. You have to learn about antecedents, about relationships. You have to learn about conditional and non-conditional clauses. You know what makes this really difficult now in seminary? The latest statistics that I've seen regarding our seminary, and we get the cream of the crop, we get the finest young men coming out of the universities of our nation, one out of four of the men coming into the Master's Seminary, one out of four can pass the basic English exam! One out of four! They can all talk English. They can all read English. They just don't understand the structure of language. And because they don't understand the structure of language, you can't teach them a foreign language until they do.
We have people today, who will never be able to understand the structure of the foreign languages Hebrew and Greek because they don't even understand the structure of English, trying to interpret the Bible! Now grammar is not anybody's favorite subject. Sorry, those of you who teach English. Grammar is just grammar! It just there and you have to learn it. But it is essential in interpreting the Word of God. People say to me, "What is the first thing you do when you prepare a message?" The first thing I do is study the Biblical text in the original language and learn the grammar and understand all of the word relationships: go over sentence structure and grammar so I know exactly what is being said and what modifies what, and how it all fits together.
In fact, more often than not, when I preach to you, the main idea that I am trying to get across to you is contained in the main verb. And the supporting ideas are contained in the participle that modifies the main verb. Now, you can do this for yourselves by reading commentaries that will help you in the process; by doing inductive Bible study. Breaking down into diagraming sentences, remember that terrible thing you use to have to do, that nobody does anymore? But, that's all a part of discerning grammatical construction.
4. The Synthesis Principle
The Old Reformers used the expression "Scriptura Intra Pratatum" (sp.). What that means is that Scripture is its own interpreter. And you use the Synthesis Principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible. Right? I don't come across a passage and say, "Wow! This is a new doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible." Wait a minute, if you think that passage is teaching a doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible and appears contradictory to other things taught in the Bible--you've misinterpreted it. Right? Because Scripture will be consistent with itself. Why? One perfect author wrote it all. Who's that? God.
Scripture will interpret Scripture. The Holy Spirit won't disagree with Himself, and you can interpret the Word of God by the Word of God. That is a very, very, essential thing. And then one more principle.
5. The Practical Principle
The final question you ask, you go through this whole process, starting out, "All right what's the literal meaning here?" Then you move to, "What's the historical background? The context? What are all the grammatical components here? How does this synthesize with the rest of Scripture? You hear me do that, don't you? I make a point and then I show you other verses where that point exists, in order to see that this is the Scripture teaching and elucidating on its own truth. And then the last question you ask is, "So what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me? How does it apply to my life? But you never ask that question until you've gone through all the other steps. That's right. Most people today read the Bible and say all right, "What does this mean to me?" And they skip all the stuff in the middle.
By the way, I would recommend to you a helpful little book, if you want a good tool that's excellent for you. It's Dick Mayhue's book, "How to Interpret the Bible." It's a paperback. It will be a tremendous tool for you. I know that we have it in our book store. You can go in and buy them all out tonight.
Now, in the process of this, [there is] one more thing that I need to say. In these five principles of interpreting Scripture, there's another component, and that's the principle of the Holy Spirit and illumination. Even when I have taken it literally, and worked through the grammar, and reconstructed the history, and when I have delved into all the terms and the words and synthesize it with all of Scripture, all of that effort would come up empty if it weren't for the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. Because He alone knows the things that are coming from God, 1 Corinthians 2 says. And He is the one who teaches them to us. He is the anointing in 1 John 2:27, that teaches us all things.
You remember that verse, 1 John 2:27, John says, "The anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him." It's not telling us we don't need teachers; it's not telling us we don't need those who guide us, because He's given to the Church Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Teaching Pastors, and even teachers to teach us. And He has given some the gift of teaching and preaching, so that we can be taught. But it is an assurance that we can know the difference between the heresy that is being discussed in 1 John 2 and the truth regarding the Gospel of Christ, because we possess the Spirit.
It doesn't guarantee that we are going to have the correct interpretation of every verse in the Bible, even though we do nothing. It doesn't mean we don't need human teachers. It just means regarding the Gospel, regarding the basic truth of Christ, we can discern by the Holy Spirit leading--truth from error.
Now, in closing, just a suggestion, four texts are commonly misinterpreted by Charismatics. And I'll just apply what we have learned tonight to those four very briefly, to help you understand how easily they could be rightly understood.
The first one, I want you to turn to it, and we are not going to do all that we could do because you can buy my commentary or get the tape on the passage and go through it in detail. But, Matthew, chapter 12, is a good starting point because they use this quite often to intimidate Christians. In Matthew, chapter 12, you have the record of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And you remember that Jesus said, "Anything could be forgiven you, anything said against the Son of Man, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven you." If we had the time we could read from verse 22 all the way on, but just go down to verse 31, Jesus says, "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."
Now, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Well, if you listen to two very popular Charismatics, by the name of Charles and Francis Hunter, well known husband and wife team, who have written numbers of books and speak on the road all the time, this is what they say. They say, that anyone who questions tongues, and this is pretty much what you hear from the Charismatic movement, anyone who questions tongues or any other aspect of the Charismatic movement is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They imply that any critic of the charismatic movement are perilously close to being condemned by Christ for such blasphemy. Is that what this is teaching? They use this verse to support that. Does a challenge to Charismatic error equal blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
When someone denies that tongues are for today or that the Baptism of the Spirit is a post-salvation experience, has that person committed the unpardonable sin? Not according to this passage. In this text you remember that a demon possessed man was born blind and dumb; [he was] brought to Jesus and He healed him. The Pharisees heard it; they said, "Jesus casts out demons by Satan." Remember that? "By Beelzebul," which was their name for the "Lord of the Flies," the Philistine Satan, the Prince of Evil Spirits. They were saying Jesus does what He does by the power of Satan.
Now, according to the principles of interpretation which we've just learned, the first thing to do would be to look at the literal meaning of the passage. The Pharisees were literally saying, "Jesus Christ got His power from Satan." All right, we understand that. Let's move to the historical principle. Jesus' ministry had been going on for two years, and during that time He had been performing numerous miracles that proved to everyone, really it should have proved to everyone, that He was God. He was the Messiah. The conclusion should have been, "He is God!" Their conclusion was, "He functions under the power of Satan!" They concluded the exact opposite.
Using the synthesis principle, we go a step further. We check other parts of the Bible and we find that at His baptism Jesus received the Holy Spirit. And after being baptized, the Spirit of God descended as a dove [and] came upon Him. And then we learned that when Jesus went out and performed His miracles, it was the Spirit working through Him. He had yielded Himself up to the Holy Spirit. And so it was the Holy Spirit working in Him, casting out demons by the Spirit's power. They were coming along and saying He did it by Satan's power.
Blasphemy, then against the Holy Spirit, was attributing the works of Christ, done by the Spirit of God, to Satan. That's what blasphemed the Holy Spirit. It was being exposed to the full revelation of Christ's deity, seeing His miracles, hearing His teachings, and concluding He's satanic. For that, you can't be forgiven! Why? Because if you have seen it all and heard it all and you conclude that He's satanic--you can't get saved! Right? Because you've concluded exactly the opposite about Christ! That's the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12. It doesn't say anything about tongues. It doesn't say anything about the contemporary Charismatic movement.
We know that all of us as sinners resist the Holy Spirit. All of us who are convicted by the Holy Spirit and fight back at that conviction are resisting and in one way or another blaspheming Him, but still we can be saved. The only way you can blaspheme to the degree where you couldn't be saved is if you had had all the revelation and you concluded the opposite of the truth! You're unsavable! Because, in order to be saved, you have to acknowledge Jesus as God. Right?
First of all, the sin against the Holy Spirit referred to there is a historical event. And secondly, if there was some application to us, it would simply be rejecting Christ when you have full knowledge.
Look at another one, Hebrews 13:8, this is a very brief one, but again its a classic illustration of the way they work. Almost every Pentecostal Church you'll go into (certainly in the past this was true) will have a verse in the front of the Church, in the back of the Church, on a plaque somewhere--it'll be Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today, and forever," Have you ever been into a Pentecostal Church and seen that? It is in most all of them, or was. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today, and forever."
Now, why is that important? This is what they say, "If Jesus baptized with the evidence of speaking in tongues yesterday, then surely He is doing it today and He'll be doing it tomorrow. And so they used that to say, "Whatever Jesus did in the past, He's doing now, [and] He'll be doing in the future. The silliness of that interpretation is that tongues never started until Acts 2! So, though Jesus is the same yesterday, throughout all the yesterday of His eternal existence, He didn't do that! You see how obvious that is? Then you say, "Now, wait a minute. In the yesterday He did miracles." No, no, no, not in the yesterday of His eternal existence. Before the world began He wasn't doing miracles. And before the world began He wasn't sending the Spirit in cloven tongues of fire.
You see what you have here is a statement about the eternal, immutable, essence of Christ. That He is eternal, yesterday, today, and forever, and unchanging in His essence. Not that He has always, is, and will always do everything the same way.
Well, we don't have time to look at the other Scriptures. One favorite they like is Mark 16, which says, "That these signs will follow those that believe . . . they will cast out demons, speak with new tongues." They love to emphasize that. They are not so hot on picking up snakes and drinking deadly poison. And then it says, "It will not hurt them if they drink it and they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." They say, "See, we can heal the sick! And see, we can speak in tongues! And see, we can cast out demons!" But they don't advocate picking up snakes and drinking deadly poison! In fact how they handle that--I need to just tell you how they handle that.
The Hunter's, for example, say,
Well, that only counts if you pick up the snake accidentally. Is that what it says in Mark's Gospel, "If you happen to pick up a snake accidentally?" Or, it only matters if you drink the poison accidentally. In fact, they write, do you notice the Bible says, "If we drink anything poisonous," it means accidentally. It won't hurt us. Hallelujah, best insurance policy we know of.
Now, the problem with their interpretation is its not literal. There is no accidentally there. Furthermore, historically, He's talking about the Apostolic age and those who responded to the ministry of the Apostles. They even go so far as to make the silly remark, "And of course, we all know that the biggest snake is Satan, and when he bites us, God delivers us from his deadly poison," which just allegorizes the thing--spiritualizes it. They play fast and loose.
The concern that I have is to share with you just the sense that there is an awful lot of irresponsibility in dealing with these texts. And for you sake and mine, we need not, listen carefully to me, we need not just to criticize the movement. We need to be able to go beneath and to show where the critical flaws lie.
One text in closing, and you know it very well, 2 Timothy 2:15. Just to remind you, so you're armed if you get into any conversation with folks like this. "Be diligent to present yourself approved of God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed." And then the last phrase, "Handling accurately the word of truth." Beloved, this is where we must lay down the law. We must protect the integrity of Scripture by demanding a proper interpretation. That phrase, "handling accurately," means "cutting it straight." Paul was a tent maker and in order to make a tent he had to cut a lot of pieces of material, either hide or woven hair. If he didn't cut the parts right, like making a dress or a shirt, that the whole didn't fit together. Right? You cut the parts right; you sew them together, it works. And he is saying, if you don't cut the pieces right the whole theology doesn't fit together and what you've got is people hacking up the pieces and putting together an obtuse bizarre theology that does not make sense, is not coherent.
We must know how to rightly divide the word of truth. Because if we don't, mishandling the Scriptures and not interpreting it properly just feeds endless confusion. And that is why there is so much Charismatic chaos.
Father, thank you for our time tonight and looking over these things and considering some of the basics of Bible interpretation. Make us faithful. And Lord help us again to realize that many people in this movement love you and are victimized. They are victimized by these foolish interpretations that are given to them very authoritatively, by people who sound convincing. We pray that your Spirit would give them great discernment. We know that your Spirit will grant them to discern if they are true believers, between heresy about the gospel and the truth of the gospel. And we can only ask that somehow your Spirit would lead them to true teachers who will teach them the right interpretation of Scripture so they would not be confused and thus miss the privilege and opportunity of spiritual growth and giving you glory that you deserve. Lord thank you for giving us exposure to those who rightly divided the Word so that we could follow in their stead. Make us faithful to that Word which rightly understood, must be applied. And all for your glory in Christ's Name. Amen.
Transcribed by:
Tony Capoccia Bible Bulletin Board internet: www.biblebb.com Box 314 Columbus, NJ 08022 ....online since 1986
Doc viewed 8591 times.
Related Content
This articles keywords/phrases are:
the Charismatic movement
The articles in the list below have 1 or more of the same keywords or phrases as the article you are viewing. If you wish to hone in on a single keyword, click on that keyword and you will see a list of articles that match just that keyword.
Charismatic Chaos - Part 3
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 5
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 6
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 7
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 8
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 9
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 10
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 11
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 12
in Sermons
Charismatic Chaos - Part 13
in Sermons
Site and Hosting Sponsored by:
Invite Them Home SEO Solutions


text:
Below is a list of events at the 98th annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America that involve environmental justice…
Environmental Justice section events:
ESA Applied Ecology, Agroecology, Urban Ecosystems, Human Ecology, and Environmental Justice Joint Mixer
Tuesday, August 6, 2013: 6:30 PM-8:00 PM
200D, Minneapolis Convention Center
ESA Environmental Justice Business Meeting
Wednesday, August 7, 2013: 11:30 AM-1:15 PM
Director's 4, Hilton Minneapolis
All are welcome to share ideas and get involved in section activities!
Workshops and Special Sessions:
SS 4: Generating a Historical Time Line of 'Earth Stewards' to Inspire Our Future
Monday, August 5, 2013: 10:15 AM-11:30 AM
101E, Minneapolis Convention Center
Organizer: Robert A. Dyball
WK 41: Developing Action Plans for Incorporating Environmental Justice (EJ) in Ecological Research and Education: Learning from Diverse EJ Practitioners How to Shape Future Community Sustainability
Tuesday, August 6, 2013: 8:00 PM-10:00 PM
L100B, Minneapolis Convention Center
Organizer: Carmen R. Cid
WK 51: Launching A Scientists' Speakers Bureau for Outreach to Faith and Justice Communities
Thursday, August 8, 2013: 11:30 AM-1:15 PM
Director's 2, Hilton Minneapolis
Organizer: Gregory E. Hitzhusen
Fostering Community-Ecologist Partnerships for Environmental Justice
Friday, August 9, 2013: 12:00 PM-5:00 PM
University of Minnesota Urban Research and Outreach-Engagement Center, 2001 Plymouth Ave. North, Minneapolis, MN
Organizer: Megan Gregory
Symposia and Organized Oral Sessions:
OOS 7: Doing Justice Through Your Research: Following Your Passion and Creating a Just Society as an Ecologist
Tuesday, August 6, 2013: 8:00 AM-11:30 AM
101B, Minneapolis Convention Center
Organizer: Leanne M. Jablonski
SYMP 13: Can Ethics and Justice Pave a Sustainable Pathway for Human Ecosystems?
Wednesday, August 7, 2013: 1:30 PM-5:00 PM
M100EF, Minneapolis Convention Center
Organizer: Mimi E. Lam
Other Talks:
COS 49-10: The University of St. Thomas Stewardship Garden: Combining biodiversity research and community service in an urban agriculture setting
Tuesday, August 6, 2013: 4:40 PM
M101A, Minneapolis Convention Center
Ashela A. Richardson, Biology, University of St. Thomas, Saint Paul, MN
Quinn A. Wrenholt, Biology, University of St. Thomas, Saint Paul, MN
Adam D. Kay, Biology, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN
IGN 9-7: Urban Climate and Social Inequities
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
101H, Minneapolis Convention Center
William G. Wilson, Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC


text:
Hello Friends!
Long time no chat. So much to catch you up on! First of all, I have fig&fennel cookbooks in again finally. They look awesome! If you would like one, email me at email@example.com and I will send you one. They are $30 and you can pay me by paypal or email transfer. There are a few retail outlets in Calgary that will have them as well…Should have a list to you by the end of the week!
In other exciting news…Calgary Food Bloggers are joining forces to put on a bake sale this weekend!!! All proceeds will go to the Brown Bagging project with the Calgary Kids Society. There are going to be amazing, delicious treats, and it's going to be a lot of fun, SO, you should come and visit me there this weekend! Feb 11 and 12, 10am-5:30pm at Casel Marche at 17th Ave SW and 24th St. I will be there Saturday, Feb 11 from 10-12. I will actually have cookbooks available too if you want to pick one up from me there.
On a personal note: I survived January with nary a scar. It was the most beautiful January ever. Lots on the go: Picky Princess is loving Kindergarten, I have changed Foodie Baby's name to Baby Light because she lives on about 10 calories a day and no longer loves food. Sexy Husband and I are working on some exciting things including The 1Night Benefit Concert, that we produce every year to raise money for a local charity. This year we are hoping to raise $50,000 for the Calgary Dream Centre. You should come, it's going to be a great concert. Check it out here!
Hope to see you Saturday!


text:
Messages from visitors:
Inspire your class ...
read our suggestions!
Feature of the Month:
Colorable Number Chart
Last Updated
6 Mar 2020
Helping people learn for 19 Years
Started 19th April 2000
See Recent Additions
Times Tables
Print out The Times Tables and stick them in your exercise book.
Test Your Tables with an interactive quiz.
Have your say!
Visit the Math is Fun Forum
Straight Lines
Play with the Properties of the equation of a straight line
Math Tools :: Math Links
Mathematics is commonly called Math in the US and Maths in the UK.


text:
Welcome! The contents of the Alaska Outdoors Supersite
forums are viewable by anyone, and may be read by clicking the forum headings
below. To post to our forums, please register. Alaska Outdoors
Supersite offers several membership levels. Learn more!
for a free forum account | Upgrade to a Supporting Forum Membership | Manage Your Account/Update Password
For your security,
your account management area, forums and University require login. Please use
the same username and password for all areas.
The administrator may have required you to register before you can view this page.


text:
Wouldn't it be nice to check someone's reputation on ServerFault or SuperUser even if you're currently browsing StackOverflow?
So you could check, how active he/she is on other platform and browse his/her profile on the over there.
That's why I propose to implement a little badge in the profile page which shows the reputation on the other platforms.
A nice addon could be to see the reputation if you hover over link to user's profile right in a question.
So: What is your opinion about my proposal?


text:
How to use a public Wi-Fi hotspot safely?
If you use Wi-Fi at places like Starbucks, your local cafe or other public places and go about your normal computer activity, it is high time you thought about the security of your computer and your personal data. Hackers often sit around and wait for people who use unsecured networks and reveal their personal data. You can make a few steps to improve your security while using a public Wi-Fi hotspot.
Here are the things you should always do when connecting to a public network:
- The first thing you should be aware of is that if a hotspot doesn't require a password, it is not secured. Don't be fooled. If a hotspot does ask for a password or guides you through a log-in screen, you are still not secured. Hackers will often set up fake networks like Free Starbucks Wi-Fi or public Wi-Fi to lure you in. And they will filter all your internet activity. The good habit is checking the name of the network. You can check it by confirming the name by an employee of the cafe or other place which serves the Wi-Fi hotspot.
- The second step which you need to do is to check that your firewall is enabled. It is like locking your own house. Windows and Mac both have built-in firewalls that are enabled by default, but here is one thing to modify: make it block all incoming connections. You can do this by going to your computer security settings. You should also disable file sharing, which allows people on your network to access shared files and folders. When you connect to a network for the first time in Windows, your computer will ask you what type of network it is or where you are connecting. Be sure to select 'public'. This will automatically turn off file sharing for that network. If you are on a Mac operating system, go to your sharing preferences and un-check those services.
- With these settings in a public place, you are already much safer, but you can always improve your security by encrypted connection. I suggest you install the VPN program in your computer. You can surf the hotspot through a virtual private network, which will make you (completely) invisible to third parties. VPN creates an opaque tunnel between your PC and a security gateway that prevents third parties from viewing your web browsing activities, instant messages, downloads, credit card information or anything else you send over the network. When you install a program such as SecurityKISS Tunnel, you protect yourself from snoopers and data theft.
And here is my last piece of advice: treat all open networks as a security risk. If you want to do any online shopping, connect to your bank account or do any activity that could potentially expose your personal information, please do it at home or office. Remember that in public places there are strangers who can look over your shoulder and in this way steal your passwords, credit card number or other personal details.


text:
Drive across the empty reaches of the Great Plains, from the lost promise of Valentine, Neb., to the shadowless side roads into Sunray, Tex., and what you see is a land that has lost its purpose. Many of the towns set in this infinity of flat have a listless look, with shuttered main streets and schools given over to the grave.
With upwards of $20 billion a year in federal payments going to a select few in farm country, you would think that these troubled counties would have a more vigorous pulse. After all, corn and wheat prices are at record highs, and big manses here and there, with Hummers in limestone driveways, indicate that somebody is doing well.
It would be one thing if the despair and disparity in farm country were the sole products of history, if time had simply passed it all by. But it comes as a jolt to realize that government policy is much to blame.
The Red State welfare program, also known as the farm subsidy system, showers most of its tax dollars on the richest farmers, often people with no dirt under their fingernails, at the expense of everybody else trying to work the land. Like urban welfare before reform, agriculture subsidies reward those who can work the system — farming the government, as they call it around the diner.
And when you dare ask about the farmer in Colorado who received more than $2 million in handouts, or all those absentee landowners collecting their $150,000 government checks in gilded urban ZIP codes, the reaction is: it's none of your business.
Thus, the American Farm Bureau, which represents some of the biggest corporate welfare recipients, is terrified that a motley mix of peasants are now at the door with pitchforks. On their Web page, the bureau warns members that "forces outside of agriculture" are demanding change. The audacity! The farm bureau's attitude to the taxpayer is: just write the check and shut up.
Every five years or so Congress drafts a farm bill. The last farm bill was a masterpiece of Soviet-style goals and giveaways signed by that faux-rancher who likes to show off his cowboy boots, President Bush.
This massive piece of legislation could be a blueprint for rural America. But it has become a spoils system where the congressmen-turned-lobbyists make sure that their clients get triple-figure checks for growing things that the nation already has in surplus.
This year, things are different. It's not their farm bill anymore. It is quickly becoming a food bill, a design for the American diet, possibly the worst in the industrial world. Budget hawks, nutritionists, small farmers and big farmers who grow fruits and vegetables without subsidies, alternative energy advocates and rural renaissance types — all are ready to do battle over the new plan.
The farm bill sets the rules for the American food system and helps to subsidize obesity. It rewards growers of big commodity crops like corn, soybeans and wheat — the foundation of our junk food nation. So, a bag of highly processed orange puff balls with no nutritional value is cheaper than a tomato or a peach. Wonder why.
The reformists, by and large, are not trying to get in on the gravy train. They want to revitalize rural America, to encourage farmers' markets, contribute to environmental health and to make it easier for poor people to buy fresh fruits and vegetables.
In Congress, Jeff Flake, a maverick Republican from Arizona who angered party leaders by taking on earmarks, and Ron Kind, a Democrat who represents dairy country in Wisconsin, are leading the charge. There is likely to be a huge fight later this summer, because the old guard who protect the farm lobby are embedded deep in the early-stage committees.
Once you step into this stuff, it's hard to pull away. I worked a summer on a dairy farm, hauling hay, shoveling manure and taking the occasional dead calf out for burial. The farmer lady offered to pay me with a cow or a check; I took the money.
Thanks to the Environmental Working Group, we know exactly how much money every subsidized farmer is getting in every county. The group's database shows that just 1 percent of all farmers receive about 17 percent of the payments — averaging $377,484 per person, over three years.
That's a nice handout for these stalwarts of Red State values, prompting two conclusions: the system is broken, and I should have held onto my cow.


text:
Nursing Mom Cafe - Breastfeeding Support Group
Search Events
Nursing Mom Cafe - Breastfeeding Support Group
Course Description
A breastfeeding support group, free and open to all mothers and babies.
An informal group session facilitated by an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) to answer questions and assist with breastfeeding. Join us to share experiences, discuss concerns and celebrate successes with other mothers. Pre and post feeding weight checks of infant are offered.
Registration is not necessary. Classes may be cancelled due to inclement weather. Call the Lactation Office for more information 412.578.7030
West Penn Hospital
4800 Friendship Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15224
Date & TimeMarch 14th, 2018 From 11:00 am - To 12:30 pm
Lactation Department


text:
52,700 reviews
and more.. and still writing ...
MusicWeb Here
You can also use this FreeFind
but it is not so comprehensive
International mailing
£11 post-free anywhere
(currently suspended)
birthday of Mieczyslaw Weinberg on December 8, 2019.
Renate Eggbrecht has recorded all 3 violin Sonatas
Works for
Voice by György Kurtág
Best Seller
Cyril Scott
piano music
Hahn Complete
Piano Sonatas
6,7,8 Osborne
Symphony for
solo piano
New Releases
Nimbus Podcast
10% discount
Special offer
50% off
15CDs £83
incl. postage
Musicweb sells the following labels
10% off
10% off
10% off
10% off
10% off
10% off
voce 10% off
Priest 10% off
10% off
10% off
10% off
Follow us on Twitter
Editorial Board
MusicWeb International
Founding Editor
Rob Barnett
Editor in Chief
John Quinn
Seen & Heard
Editor Emeritus
Bill Kenny
MusicWeb Webmaster
David Barker
Jonathan Woolf
MusicWeb Founder
Len Mullenger
Eden In Atlantis
Dulcie HOLLAND (1913-2000)
Sonata for cello and piano (1993) [14.48]
Gary Williams (cello); Max Olding (piano)
rec. Grevillea Studios, Brisbane, 12 December 1994
Fairy penguins (1994)
Dulcie Holland (piano) [1.24]
rec. Studio 301 [not further identified], 2 September 1995
Robert ALLWORTH (b.1943)
Lute Concerto (1988) [17.44]
Susan Jones (lute); Nuove Musiche Baroque Ensemble/Adrian Hooper
rec. Chatsworth Studio, ABC, November 1998
Colin BRUMBY (b.1933)
O sacred head sore wounded (1992)
Lawrence Bartlett (organ) [1.53]
rec. St Michaels, Vaucluse, 25 June 1997
Eric GROSS (b.1926)
Thanksgiving (1986)
Ray Lemond (piano) [3.00]
rec. 26 May 1992 [no location given]
Derek STRAHAN (b.1935)
Eden in Atlantis (1995) [24.36]
Liza Rintel (soprano); Michael Scott (flute and alto flute); David Miller
rec. Opera Centre, Surrey Hills, Sydney, 15 November 1996
This album brings together some vary disparate works
from a wide variety of sources by Australian composers, the only common
denominator appearing to be that the pieces were all written in the
ten years between 1986 and 1995 by composers born before the end of
the Second World War.
The international reputation of Dulcie Holland, the most senior of these figures, seems to rest almost entirely on her achievements as a pedagogue and the author of a series of textbooks on music for children. But her Cello Sonata reveals a whole new side to her art. She studied under John Ireland among others, and his influence is clearly discernible alongside the flavours of Hindemith and Shostakovich that colour the music. This is hardly a work of outstanding originality, but it has plenty of life and is superbly played by the two musicians with a couple of tuning issues by Gary Williams barely noticeable. The recording is a bit airless, with not much resonance around the players and the piano sounding rather hard in consequence, but quite tolerable.
Robert Allworth is the sound engineer responsible for quite a few of these recordings, and he is also the composer featured in the second work on this disc. His Lute Concerto is not at all the neo-classical pastiche that one might have expected, but a sultry and refined work which exploits the timbres of period instruments in a thoroughly modern way. The slow movement, marked con morbidezza, finds the lute plucking out what sounds suspiciously like a twelve-tone row over a background of recorder, harp, baroque violin, viola da gamba and violone that produces a most peculiar mix of sensibilities but has at the same time an odd fascination. The movement is headed by a quotation from Shakespeare: The autumn of life is here, with sad faded flowers. Once they were beautiful in the rain. This is by far the longest movement, and most of the finale is taken up by an accompanied lute cadenza which recalls material from the earlier movements but ends rather inconsequentially.
There then follow three short instrumental pieces. Colin Brumbys O sacred head sore wounded is a straightforward chorale prelude for organ on the well-known Lutheran hymn also employed by Bach. It is followed after far too short a pause by Eric Gosss Thanksgiving, almost light music in feel with mildly bluesy overtones like the sort of music one might encounter is an upmarket hotel bar which employs a pianist to accompany the guests conversation. Indeed it may have been intended for exactly that milieu, since we are informed that it was written to celebrate the fortieth wedding anniversary of two relatives of the composer. Dulcie Holland returns, playing the piano herself in a very much more constricted acoustic, in a depiction of Fairy penguins in a sort of cakewalk that sounds like Billy Mayerl.
After that it comes as somewhat of a shock to be plunged into the final item on the disc, an extended vocal piece by Derek Strahan. I have recently reviewed a whole raft of recordings of this composer for this site (review), and there discussed at some length his proposed cycle of operas based on the Atlantis myth. This chamber piece develops material intended for the first part of that cycle, but it does not have the immediate appeal of the Atlantis Variations which I discussed in my earlier review. The recording is taken from a live performance, with the vocal soloist at times somewhat distanced; but this does not excuse her almost impenetrable diction. The words, by the composer himself (they are thankfully included in the booklet), are not great poetry; but the sometimes shrill and uncomfortable manner in which they are set do the text little justice even were the words as delivered by the singer ever comprehensible. The accompaniment suggests that the instrumental parts have been reduced from a full orchestral score, and at times one has a sense of the forces straining to contain the music and one longs for the sound of a large romantic orchestra. Flute and piano do the best they can. As a sample of the whole work, it is not very enticing; but one would welcome the chance to hear more of the score with more substantial forces since there are some very striking passages here.
This is a very mixed collection indeed, but the three main works on the disc all in their different ways repay the listener.
Paul Corfield Godfrey


text:
Please do.
Fleur de mortGuest
Can I post my lessons here?
I have great lessons from the British council.
Last edited by Fleur de mort; 08-Sep-2007 at 06:59.
Please do.
We´ll be waiting.
hi.i need your help .please i need new material for students of basic courses.
I am afraid that the answer is probably not- they may well fall under copyright. Is there any copyright message on them?
Last edited by RonBee; 08-Sep-2007 at 19:47. Reason: fix quote


text:
New Braintree, Massachusetts
|This article is a stub. Help us to expand it by contributing your knowledge. For county and town page guidelines, visit U.S. County Page Content Suggestions.
New Braintree is a town in Massachusetts. It was formed in 1751 and was previously called Harwick/Brookfield. It can be found in Worcester county and is a part of the Worcester registry of deed district. For more information, contact the county at 20 Memorial Dr., New Braintree 01531. On the attached map, New Braintree is shown as 29 in Worcester county.
For information about the state of Massachusetts see Massachusetts Family History Research.


text:
Mar 25, 2020
Join the growing community of 1700+ military veterans working at Smithfield Foods, working as a member of our Maintenance Team. Maintenance technicians repair and troubleshoot food processing equipment to include: stuffers, vacuum pumps, mixers, grinders, packaging machinery, conveyors, hydraulic units, multivacs, and ovens. All of this equipment helps deliver Good Food, Responsibly to America's dinner table. Maintenance team members at Smithfield do hard and physically demanding work that requires strong mechanic, electrial, and/or electronic aptitude - and Military veterans are a proven fit. Smithfield Salutes, our Veterans Employee Resource Group, is working to make the transition from military to civilian life a seamless one for you and your family. We encourage military veterans to apply for any job at Smithfield Foods that matches your ability to fix, execute, problem solve, create, or lead. For more information www.SmithfieldFoods.com/veterans . To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals to perform the essential functions . A minimum of two (2) years of military service, active duty or reserve. High School diploma or GED Experience in the maintenance field; preferred. Ability to weld stainless steel and other related metals. Knowledge of electrical circuits and troubleshooting, preferred. Prior experience reading schematics and hydraulic drawings, preferred. Good written and verbal communication skills. Bilingual, preferred. May be required to work long hours and weekends. Click on link below to be directed to our website for your application process: https://careers-smithfield.icims.com/jobs/10456/job
Smithfield Foods Tar Heel, NC Full-Time