TigerJ

You are right in that there is no such thing as taking the Bible literally in the pure sense. Latin is not an original language of the Bible. The New Testament was originally written in "Koine" or "common" Greek. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though some parts, including the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew. Your depiction of the Bible as having been changed via "Russian telephone is not very accurate. Scholars working at translating the Dead Sea scrolls, many dating from several hundred years before Christ reveal remarkably few changes in comparison with manuscripts dating from hundreds of years later. Great care was obviously exercised in the work of copying in those days before the printing press. Different translations have more to do with different ways of interpreting words that occur in the original language than variations in manuscripts from which they were translated. The same challenge exists in translating modern works from one language to another. One word in German might be rendered a half dozen different ways in English. Sometimes I do word studies in the original language when there seems to be a word or phrase like that. If doing serious study, it's often good to have several translations available to catch those cases where there are multiple meanings in the original language. One of the problems with the King James Version, as opposed to modern versions is that the English language has changed. King James English can mislead those who arent' familiar with it. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. . ." Why shouldn't we want the Lord? What it means is that trusting in the Lord we will not have unmet needs. That is, we shall not be in want.

I happen to be protestant (United Methodist). The protestant canon ("canon" means having met the standards) does not include the "deuterocanonical works" sometimes called intertestamental or the apocrypha. We believe those books, while they might have valid things to say and are certainly worth reading, don't meet the standards to be considered Holy Scripture. I don't begrudge those who like the King James Version, but those who have minimal exposure to the Bible often find it very difficult to get a lot of meaning out of the KJV. Some modern translations that have been pretty widely accepted are the New International Version, The New King James Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the New Century Version. The Catholic translations: The Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible are also very good. As for what to read in the Bible, I would recommend reading some from the Old Testament,and some from the New Testament every day, and maybe a Psalm too. You may get bogged down in books like Numbers and Leviticus, but I think you might enjoy Genesis and Exodus, prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. From the New Testament I would recomend starting with the Gospel of John first. You can read the other three gospels too. Note that there is some duplication among the first three gospels. The Book of Acts gives the story of the infant Christian church, including the travels of the apostle Paul. The Book of Romans, and to a lesser extent the Book of Colossians give a good accounting of the teachings of Paul, who was the most important voice in the early church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some books, like Revelation you will find very confusing without lots of study and a fair amount of help.

I don't think JP would make an issue of it except that he is getting tired of the Rob Johnson comparisons. He wants it known those comparisons aren't valid. Can't say as I blame him.

Oh boy, a newbie to abuse! Welcome!

"Organized religion" generally seems to get a bad rap. Some of it is well deserved, but I don't think all of it is. First, one must ask, what is the definition of "organized religion?" I personally don't think the definition of "organized religion" requires a denomination with a long tradition and history, though I am part of such a denomination. "Organized religion" is any time believers in some religious tradition gather together and develop some sort of structure which helps them function. With that as my definition of "organized religion," I think it is almost essential. For Christians it is not a question of "going to church." The Bible makes it clear that believers are the church. Using the imagery which the Bible does, the church is the Body of Christ, one can argue that the finger, which is part of the body, cannot survie if it remains detached from the body, nor can it function in the way that it is supposed to do. The Bible makes it clear that there are things which Jesus followers are supposed to do. They can not do those things effectively without some connection with other believers, some structure to help them cooperate in ministry and worship. I think my greatest concern over the abandonment of "organized religion," the gathering of Christians together for worship, teaching, and ministry is the fact that with each passing generation ignorance grows of the teachings of Christ and the tenets of the Christian faith. One poster decried the fact that most Christians don't know what Jesus taught. The plain fact of the matter is that when persons who believe in Jesus because their parents believed but don't go to some sort of Christian fellowship will pass on less of the faith than their parents passed to them until finally the children are taught either nothing or mostly misconceptions.

I'm one of those evil and violent evangelical Christians. Furthermore, I'm a pastor which must make me Satan himself. I have lost a father and a grandmother within the space of three and a half months. I would agree wholeheartedly that my faith helps me cope. I think the most difficult thing I can remember about their deaths 14 years ago is the fact that I couldn't be there to say goodbye, but I wholeheartedly believe that they are in heaven. I can also say as a general observation that there are far fewer tears at funerals I perform then the deceased and his/her family are active church members than when they are not. There are a few exceptions, but that's been my experience.

From the 40+ I punt most of the time. From the 41 yard line you're asking your FG to kick a 58 yarder. I don't think the Raiders even ask Janikownski to make a lot of those. From the 33 to the 40, I probably would ask my QB to make the first down of a 4th and short. From the 33 in I attempt a FG most of the time.

Scott Pitoniak: ". . .sloth like Bledsoe." I love his choice of words.

He doesn't time quite as fast as some, but he combines his speed with great quickness, probably having something to do with his ability to reach top speed quickly. That means if corners don't get a good jam on him in the 5 yard zone he's going to be able to get good separation

Yeah, next fall they will be sitting on the bench sticking tongues out at each other.

Voluntary as in, "You don't have to be here, but if you're not, we'll remember when it comes time to establishing our regular season depth chart."

The article states he has gained over 80 lbs since entering college. Major college programs don't recruit 235 lb offensive linemen,

I think Dickerson coached D-line for the Bills. He was a decent coach, but a loose cannon where Marv Levy wanted discretion and decorum.

I've seen some guys who are real high on Tony Brown, the FA picked u p from Tennessee. According to at least one fan on the official Bills fan forum, a guy who is also a Tennessee fan, Brown is fast, has great hands, and has improved his route running. He was overlooked in the draft because he was lost in the glut of RBs at Tennessee his first couple seasons. In his last couple seasons, Tennessee has had awful quarterbacking and went to much more of a ground game. He does have pretty good size.

Parrish will draw the third best CB from opposing teams. One of the attributes that I keep seeing concerning him is great quickness. I think DBs will have to be pretty good to get a jam on him. Some teams may have the CB depth to put a real good, and quick DB on him, but I don't see it happening week after week.

This source says he's pretty fast: http://www.nflfans.com/draft/2005/showplay...hemiah%20Glover He was not a combine invitee, so we don't have anything like official numbers. Still, he seems to be a poor man's Roscoe Parrish. Since we have the original, I don't see much chance the poor man's version will be a keeper.

I don't think it means anything of the sort. A trade will happen when it happens. It would be an affirmation that whatever TD says, he doesn't think Henry will play for the Bills again. It says nothing about the timing or the existence of any possible trade. Personally, when I think of A-train, I think of how the Bills just totally shut him down. I'm not all that excited. For my money, give me a young guy with upside.

My understanding was that the transition tag could only be used once by a team after the current CBA took effect. The Bills no longer have theirs available. The franchise tag is reusable. The "taggee" receives a one year contract, no bonuses, equal in value to the average salary of the top 5 salaries in the league at that position. If you sign a guy to a long term deal while franchised. the franchise tag is freed up for use on someone else.

I assume from some of the names in the article that it's Hamburg, Germany and not Hamburg, NY.

JoeDfrom NYC has selective memory. The Bills were so-so for a while before Butler was canned. Butler's poor choices about those to whom he should extend high priced contracts had left the Bills in cap **ll. Donahoe gutted the Bills roster of high priced veterans that first year to try and get us quickly out of cap **ll. Donahoe made one huge error in his tenure that has prolonged the rebuilding. That was the hiring of Gregg Williams, who was just not ready for that position. The trade for Bledsoe actually gets a mixed rating if one is honest. His physical limitations were poorly understood and planned for by the GW coaching staff, but the arrival of a big name QB was a brilliant coup from a ticket sales standpoint. Mularkey did a better job of planning around Bledsoe's limitations, but the team finally arrived at the conclusion that there is no logic in paying big bucks for a QB that you have to coddle and game plan around in order to have any chance of winning.

In a word, ugh! Right now he's backing up a kicker who is 2/4. He has one PAT attempt, which he made, and no field goal attempts. I could not find any stats relating to kickoffs. It's possible his role has been that of a kickoff specialist. There are a couple other kickers who are intriguing. One guy is 11/13 with a long of 54. http://www.nfleurope.com/stats/leaders

I don't know who called you stupid, Surf. I don't think I even read your prediction because I didn't care. I never thought much of Rix. The consensus is right. He has all the physical tools and an unbelievable knack for doing something stupid at the most critical times.

Instant assessments of the draft are worthless, but pundits do them because the public demands it.

Frankly, I don't see "smugness" or "arrogance" in Donahoe's public statements. When a reporter asks him why a trade didn't get done, how's he supposed to respond?

Don't underestimate Henry's stupidity. His agent isn't the sharpest tool in the shed either. It's all irrelevant now anyway. Whether he actually is on the sideline or not I don't think he'll be a factor. Depending on what the Bills do in the next offseason they still could get a compensatory pick for Henry in the '07 draft.