Big Nasty Brain

My Top Five Returns

2010-08-05T06:52:00.000-07:00

Wow, I can hardly believe It's been this long since I wrote a blog entry.

I'm coming back to my top five in the movie category. This time: My top five favorite female performances.

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of actresses. Chick flicks, for the most part, turn me off. And so many of the female roles in action or sci-fi films are vapid and merely there as eye-candy. So finding a female performance that really stands out in my mind - and that I actually can call a favorite - is a rare thing.

Don't expect many oscar-winning performances here. Meryl Streep isn't on my list (don't get me wrong, she's an amazing actress and I am a fan).

That said, let's jump right into the list.

5) It's a tie: Madeleine Stowe as Kathryn Railley in Twelve Monkeys; Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor in The Terminator; Sigourney Weaver as Ripley in Alien. (She wasn't Ellen until the second installment.)

I kept going back and forth on this. Stowe, Weaver, Hamilton; I couldn't make a final decision. So, it's a tie. Let me e clear here, though: When I say Linda Hamiliton as Sarah Connor, I mean in the original The Terminator film, and not T2. Same for Sigourney Weaver: Alien, not Aliens.

4) Sally Field as Mama Lil in Where The Heart Is

I've never really cared for Sally Field's roles. The whole Smokey and the Bandit thing was silly. I didnt' care for Gidget or The Flying Nun, really. Sybil was tough to watch (because of the subject matter, not her acting) and Norma Rae kinda bored me. Usually, when I was presented with the chance to watch a film she was in, I would roll my eyes and panic.

Then I saw Where the Heart Is.

Sally has about 5 minutes screen time, if even that much, and put in one of the best performances I've ever seen. I was blown away by it. Props.

3) Donna Reed as Mary Hatch Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life

Sigh. I have to admit, I fell hopelessly in love with Mary Hatch Bailey the moment I saw her, which was, I believe, Frank Cappra's intention, and why he got that amazing "glow" in this shot. I doubt I am the first, nor will I be the last, to have swooned when she appeared onscreen.

And Donna Reed's performance in this film is amazing. From her sarcastic wit, to her anger with George, to her undying devotion, to her romanticism, to her glee when their friends come to the rescue - she never fails to make Mary real and bigger than life all at the same time.

2) Milla Jovovich as Leeloo in The Fifth Element

The girl worked with the director (Luc Besson) to invent a completely new language. And she made it believable. AND she's the lead female role in one of my top five favorite films ever.

Unfortunately, Milla hasn't gone on to do too many great films other than this one, unless, of course, you like the whole Resident Evil franchise.

1) Audrey Hepburn as a whole lotta characters in as many movies.

Princess Ann in Roman Holiday, Sabrina in Sabrina, Jo Stockton in Funny Face, Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Regina Lampert in Charade, Gabrielle Simpson in Paris - When It Sizzles, Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady, Susy Hendrix in Wait Until Dark, Lady Marian in Robin and Marian, and even as Hap in Always, just to name a few.

These are so many roles she's tackled and she made all of them memorable. I don't think there's been a better actress in the history of film-making.

Kudos, Audrey. We miss you.

Honorable Mention: Helen Bonham Carter in Fight Club and Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest.

10 things I really hate about our society (or, I’ve finally become a curmudgeon and like to complain about everything). Part One: Cell Phones

2009-12-29T08:03:00.000-08:00

Last night, I was walking out of a local establishment and the woman in front of me said something. At first, I thought she was talking to me (how silly!). But then, I quickly realized she had one of those Borg-like appendages stuck in the side of her head and she was rambling on endlessly to someone on on the other end of the line. I honestly doubt she even knew I was there.

Don’t get me wrong. I think that cell phones have their place. I have a cell phone. My employer pays for mine. It’s a great convenience to be able to stay in communication with colleagues via email, texting, or actual phone calls. I can see, that for many occupations in today’s accelerated world, cell phones are a great tool that can enhance and improve productivity.

Unfortunately, cell phones are horribly abused by many who really don’t have a need for a cell phone. I don’t think the cell phone was intended to extend casual conversation into every aspect of our lives.

Cell phones have created a generation of people who are down-right inconsiderate and rude.

I’ve lost count of the traffic violations I’ve witnessed and the times I’ve been cut off or similar by someone who was chatting away with one hand glued to the side of their heads. Yes, there are times that I’ve been engaged in conversation while driving, but it has always been limited to necessary communications, rarely initiated by me, and always with a hands-free method, such as speaker phone. There have been days where the Michael Douglas* in me has wanted to ram drivers who would rather talk on the cell phone than drive responsibly. Here’s a tip: If you can’t multi-task behind the wheel, then DON’T DRIVE WHILE HOLDING A CELL PHONE TO THE SIDE OF YOUR HEAD!

I’ve also had it with people who are absorbed by their conversation that they are simply oblivious to what is going on around them. In malls, I can see people walking along talking to themselves, bumping into others, or worse, picking the single most-obtrusive place to come to a dead halt and to continue their conversation. I’ve run into people, or had to walk around people, who suddenly just stop because they simply can’t believe what auntie Em just told them. Here’s an idea. Find a nice, out-of-the-way spot, like a bench or a booth in a cafe, and then make your call. Or better yet, stay at home and call your friends.

Worse, is when I’m out to lunch, or in a meeting, or any number of other social settings, in which someone receives a call on their cell phone and they actually answer it. Talk about disrespect. Why is that thing even on? I don’t mind when someone announces ahead of time that they may need to take an incoming call - their wife is expecting, or a relative is in the hospital, etc. - but to take a call and then start blabbing away and laughing as though I wasn’t even in the room is enough to make me want to grab their phone and defenestrate it. Have some common courtesy. Either excuse yourself from the room with a courteous, “I’m very sorry, but I must take this call,” or ignore the call and turn the ringer off to avoid further interruption.

I’m sure there are a dozen other social faux pas committed with the cell phone, but these are the ones that bother me most.

Well, my blood pressure has normalized and I’m stepping off my soap box, for now. Please, talk amongst yourselves and feel free to offer your own stories of how you’ve been violated by a lack of cell phone etiquette.

(Obscure film reference to Falling Down.)

5 Favorite Concert Moments

2009-08-27T09:41:00.000-07:00

I've seen a lot of shows. My very first was Frank Zappa at Stabler Arena in 1979. I was 15. It was an amazing show. Since then, I've seen The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, David Bowie, Yes, Kansas, Todd Rundgren, The Tubes, and far too many others to mention and even a few I'm sure I've forgotten.

Of all the shows I've attended, here are five experiences I'll never forget.

5) Metallica, 08/07/1989 at the at the Stone Balloon, Newark, DE

I've always envied people who got to see huge acts in tiny venues. Well, this was my experience with a huge act at a tiny venue.

I thought maybe it was a misspelling or something- perhaps this was a Metallica tribute band or similar. I called the club and they confirmed that it was, in fact, the real deal and Metallica would be playing at the Stone Balloon.

The Stone Balloon was not a huge place. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the legal capacity for the venue had to be less than 400. So when I saw an ad in a local music magazine boasting that Metallica was playing there, I called a friend, and he and I drove immediately from the main line in PA to Delaware to get the tickets - to ensure our place at this historic event.

That night, I experienced one of the loudest concerts I'd ever been to. I hung out with Pauli Slivka (Tommy Conwell and the Young Rumblers' bassist) right in front of the sound board. He and I took cigarette butts and jammed them in our ears to lessen the barrage.

I think Slayer opened for them that evening, but it was all about Metallica for me that night. I couldn't have asked for a better set and a more memorable setting.

4) The Tubes, Summer, 1989 at the 23 East, Ardmore, PA

The Tubes were on a small club tour with another lead singer after Fee had left the band. Now, for some, this would be a disappointment, but the core of the band, Bill Spooner, Rick Anderson, Roger Steen, Vince Welnick, and Prairie Prince - drummer extraordinaire - was intact. I'd pay almost anything to see Prairie play and to hear Bill Spooner croon. (That's Spooner in the pic.)

They played an amazing set list that night, including Pimp and Brighter Day from the Young and Rich album. Hard to believe, but Fee was barely missed.

At one moment, during I Don't Want to Wait Anymore, Bill toasted the crowd, guzzled a 12 oz., subsequently vomited behind his amp, and came in on the vocal without missing a beat- like it had been choreographed.

Afterward, I went backstage and was chatting with the band. They'd seen my band, Love Bomb, on the schedule to appear in the club later that month and wanted to know who and what it was. When I told them it was my band, they asked if we did any covers of their stuff. When I said I hadn't, Roger Steen asked, "What, does our stuff suck so much?" We had a good laugh. At least, I did.

Bill invited my band to come and record at his studio in San Francisco. Unfortunately, it was destroyed in an earthquake and we never got the chance to do so. C'est la vie.

3) Jane Siberry, 5/4/1988 at the Chestnut Cabaret, Philadelphia, PA

I'd caught Jane on MTV's 120 Minutes when she released the single, One More Colour, from her debut album, Speckless Sky. I thought she was terrific. So, imagine my surprise when I arrived one night at the Chestnut Cabaret to see a friend's band, only to walk in Jane playing live. What an unexpected surprise.

During one song, a boisterous number with a rich Latin feel (Very Large Hat, perhaps?), the band broke down into a simple quarter-note piano part. Jane came out looking like Jackie-O with the tight sleeveless dress that ended just above the knee, white gloves, and a pill-box hat. She started waving both arms back and forth with the beat, then broke into Petula Clark's Don't Sleep in the Subway. The rendition was flawless and I was floored. Then, when the song was over, they went back into the loud frenetic Latin number as quickly as they had come out of it.

I will never forget that.

2) Chris Whitley, 10/24/92 at the Chestnut Cabaret, Philadelphia, PA

I'd seen Chris with his entire band at the Trocadero in Philadelphia just six months earlier. He was touring in support of his first album, Living With the Law. That night at the "Troc," the turnout had been good and the show was great. The live versions of his tunes were spot on.

My guitarist, Sean, and I had a serious love affair going on with Chris's first album. So when we heard he was playing again so close, it was a no-brainer to go see him.

On this night at the Chestnut Cabaret, though, there were few in the audience - maybe 50 - and Chris took the stage alone. He came out with National steel Dobro and a gadget called a Stomp-box. What ensued was one of the most intimate nights of music with an amazing artist that I've ever experienced.

Chris stomped out the beat on his stomp-box while he did solo versions of every song on the Living With the Law collection, with the exception of one tune: Dust Radio. Dust Radio was Sean and my favorite song at the time and we - and the other 48 people in attendance -simply wouldn't let Chris leave without playing it.

He came out for the encore and apologized, saying that he couldn't pull it off without the band. We begged and pleaded for him to do his very best and that we would be satisfied with any rendition of the song. He relented and started playing.

I know that the parts of the arrangement he couldn't play were imagined by all of us as we swayed back and forth to the stripped down, but magical version he gave us that night.

What an amazing show.

1) King's X, 8/12/2009 at the Sellersville Theater, Sellersville, PA

I've seen King's X 5 or 6 times now. And every show has been great. In addition to being a kick-ass bass player and having the best voice in rock and roll, DUg Pinnick (see photo) is the pinnacle of charismatic front men - he knows how to entertain a crowd. Ty Tabor is one of the greatest guitar players alive: watching and hearing him play is mind-blowing.

I'd seen a set list online before the show and knew what to expect: along with 4 songs on their set list from their latest album, XV, the band had chosen a broad selection of material from most of their albums.

I attended the show on the 12th with my brother and two other friends. I knew my brother - also a huge King's X fan - would be happy that the band was planning to play Summerland, his favorite King's X song.

My favorite King's X song is Goldilox, a track from their first album that Ty Tabor had written. My brother loves that song, too, but unfortunately, it wasn't on the set list I'd seen before the show. It's not a song they do live very often. We've only seen them do it once before in the early 90's - and my brother and I certainly had no expectations of seeing it that night.

So, as is usual, the band was incredible. We had front row seats just behind the "cabaret" seating (a few tables and chairs immediately in front of the stage) and right in front of DUg, so our view couldn't get much better. The band played Summerland and my brother was ecstatic.

Then came the moment. DUg turned the mics out to the audience, the house lights came up, and Ty started playing the opening guitar part of Goldilox. My brother and I were in disbelief. Then, DUg motioned for the audience to start singing. 300 + people in attendance started singing every word of the song as the band played softly in the background.

DUg came off the stage and stood in front of my brother and I - a mere 2 feet away - and we all continued to sing. "I'd like to know your name and I must know who you are..."

At the end, DUg said, "The hit that never was." Someone behind me yelled, "It's a hit to us." Another yelled what we were all thinking, "Thank you for writing that song."

Sigh. Yeah, I can go in peace now.

Top 5 Movie Bad Guys OF ALL TIME...

2009-07-10T08:07:00.000-07:00

Yes. Hannibal Lector is truly one bad dude. So is Darth Vader. And Annie Wilkes. And the Alien. And Pinhead. And, no doubt, Hans Gruber is someone we love as a bad guy. But these choices are all-so-very predictable. If I hear the fava bean quote one more time, I may be the one cracking open the Chianti.

So, for my choices, I've gone off the beaten path to call attention to some truly bad-ass characters that most folks don't know about. There are no block-buster film villains on my list. You may even have trouble finding one or two of the flicks that feature these villains.

So without further ado, may I introduce to you...

5. General Bethlehem, The Postman (1997) Directed by Kevin Costner.
Will Patton turns in an amazing performance as the Napoleonic General Bethlehem, a self-imposed ruler of what once was the northwestern United States, now a post-apocalyptic, disjointed remnant of a once-great nation. The tyrant Bethlehem leads his army across the region, raping and pillaging, taking whatever he deems necessary and forcing small towns into submission through fear, intimidation, and military might. This character is someone you absolutely love to hate. The movie drew small audiences and critics panned it, most having yet to forgive Costner for Waterworld. IMHO, this movie, however, is great - made all the better by Patton's interpretation of General Bethlehem.

4. The Interrogator, Closet Land (1991) Directed by Radha Bharadwaj.

When it comes to playing the villain, few excel like Alan Rickman. Who can forget his performance in Die Hard as Hans Gruber? Or his role as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - a performance that all but saved the film from being a total loss?

In 1991, though, Rickman starred with Madeleine Stowe in a little-known film called, Closet Land. For the most part (with the exception of one or two scenes with extras) it's just the two of them in one room. Stowe plays the author of children's books who's accused of having secretly inserted subversive messages into her work. Rickman plays the interrogator who, in turn, tries to be both good cop and bad cop to elicit a confession from Stowe's character, the victim. It's difficult to imagine a film that can draw you so far in and devastate you so deeply with only two actors on the screen the entire time. Stowe's performance is incredible, but it's Rickman who steals the show in this one, earning his spot on my list.

3. Frank, Retroactive (1997) Directed by Louis Morneau.

James Belushi is not the archetypal villain. I mean, isn't this guy a comedian? Heck, Frank thinks himself a comedian, too, though, so why not Belushi as a villain?
In this low-budget, sci-fi, time travel movie, Belushi is unforgettable as Frank, the big-mouthed, gun-totin', womanizing, Elvis-wannabe, bad-ass, Cadillac-driving Texan. Stereotype? You bet. And Belushi nails it.
A female cop has car trouble and is picked up by Frank, a small-time hood working the black market in technology. When Frank starts to suspect his wife of having an affair, things turn violent and the off-duty cop finds herself in the middle of it all.

Meanwhile, one of Frank's customers has stumbled onto a method for time travel. This all leads to the cop trying to change the outcome of Frank's rampage- over and over again, each time the outcome being worse than before.

I'm a big sci-fi and time travel movie fan, but it's Belushi's hard-core performance that makes this particular film work so well. Yeah, there's an attractive female lead and a compelling story, but you won't take your eyes off the marvel that is James Belushi's portrayal of Frank.

2. Moke, Stick (1985) Directed by Burt Reynolds.

Hunh? A Burt Reynolds film? HEY! Don't knock it 'til you've tried it! Burt plays Stick, an ex-con who vows to go straight, but gets wrapped up in a deal with one of his friends that goes bad - real bad. Suddenly, Stick finds himself a fugitive, not only from the law, but from the bad guys, too.

The lead thug for the capo is Moke, an albino cowboy with a serious attitude. All-around nice guy and stunt man Dar Robinson tackles this role. (That's Robinson in the photo, goofing around with Reynolds on the set.) I don't know if it's the creepy white eyes, or the gravelly voice, or - whatever - but Moke is intimidating in a really uncomfortable way. You get the feeling that he's just in a bad mood - always. The guy just doesn't ever smile.

This movie features a great scene where Moke is falling backwards to his death after falling from a balcony, and he shoots upward at Stick the entire time he falls - hardcore evil to the very bitter end. It's one of the best stunts Robinson ever did. The film industry lost an amazing individual when Dar died. Trust me, Robinson makes it worth the view and you won't regret seeing Stick.

1) Loren Visser, Blood Simple (1984) Directed by Joel Cohen.

In this debut film from the Cohen Brothers, M. Emmet Walsh plays the unscrupulous private detective, Loren Visser. Visser is hired to kill an adulteress and her lover, but he double-crosses and murders the husband who hired him instead. When Visser fears he may have been discovered, he decides to wrap up loose ends by killing the man's wife an her lover after all.
The twist here, is that the lovers begin to suspect each other of having killed the husband, and they are blind-sided by Visser, of whom, they knew nothing. This is an amazing modern take on film noir, and you simply have to see it if you are a film fan. Walsh will give you a new appreciation for his talent. This film actually features two amazing character actors: Walsh, and Dan Hadaya, another guy who's played his share of great villains onscreen.

One last honorable mention has to go to the truck driver in Steven Spielberg's Duel (1971). We never see the guy, but he terrifies us. Kudos to Spielberg for pulling that one off- oh, just like he did with the shark. ;)

When News Reporters Go Bad...

2009-07-07T07:52:00.000-07:00

YIKES! I havent' posted since February?!?! I must be really busy, 'cause the Lord knows I have plenty to rant about.

One thing that really annoys me is terrible writing that comes from supposed professional writers. One place where I see it more and more is in the news headlines that come across my favorite tickers. I realize that space is at a premium, but sometimes attempts at shortening a headline actually end up changing the meaning of the headline.

And forgive me if I think that news reporters and editors actually ought to be able to write. I would imagine that these folks went to school for journalism, or something similar, paid tens of thousands of dollars for a degree, and should have little or no excuse for not being able to handle the English language.

The worst part - for me - is that most news sites make it next to impossible to offer any kind of feedback to the author, so I have little or no means to vent my frustration with this growing trend. Until now.

So without further ado, here is my first example of terrible headline writing:

From CNN: Slain NFL star's girlfriend bought gun - police

Now, this story is actually important to me because I was (am) a huge fan of Steve "Air" McNair. Few people played football with as much heart as he did. Like others following the story, I've been waiting for the police to confirm that McNair was murdered by his girlfriend and that she, afterwards, killed herself with the same gun; a sad, but all-to-common case of love scorned and turned into crime of passion, a murder-suicide.

But imagine my surprise when, this morning, I discovered not only had the girlfriend bought the gun they discovered under her body, but that she had also purchased the police!!!

What's really annoying about this headline is that the actual article says what this headline tried to say, and is actually shorter by one less character! It reads Police: Slain NFL star's girlfriend bought gun

Ah! Now I get it. The police have made a statement that the girlfriend bought a (or the) gun! Whew, imagine my relief to discover that it's not as easy to buy the police as I originally imagined.

My top 5 favorite War movies OF ALL TIME.

2009-02-25T11:18:00.000-08:00

Again, my list, not yours. I didn't include "Apocalypse Now" "Platoon," or "Full Metal Jacket" on my list. I think they're all a little over-rated and that it's cool to like them. Personally, I have others that I prefer.

I also didn't include POW or concentration camp movies, war satires, or pre-20th century war films as I think there are enough of those films to warrant their own categories.

So, without further ado...

5) Hell's Angels (1930) Directed by Howard Hughes. Staring Jean Harlow, Ben Lyon, and James Hall.

This epic that was way over-budget -being the most expensive film ever made at the time - has some of the greatest dog fights ever put to film. Unlike many of the CGI scenes we see today, these were real men in real flyng machines, doing some of the most amazing stunts, ever, in a war movie. Surprisingly, the effects stand up well, almost 80 years later.

The first two acts are, admittedly, pretty dull, but the last 30 minutes of this film - the flying - make it worth the wait. Check it out if you haven't.

4) The Dirty Dozen (1967) Directed by Robert Aldrich. Starring Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Donald Sutherland, Jim Brown, Ernest Borgnine, and Telly Savalas.

I've seen this movie more times than I can count - I watched it every time it was on television when I was a kid - and I still love it.

Lee Marvin is perfect as the commander of this dysfunctional bunch of anti-heroes. I love the rhyme they memorize to remember the different steps of their operation. Another of my favorite scenes is the war-game.If you don't know what I'm talking about, then rent this winner. You won't be sorry.

3) The Longest Day (1962) Directed by Ken Annakin. Starring John Wayne, Henry Fonda, and Robert Mitchum.

This is the original "Saving Private Ryan." While its presentation of D-Day is less gut-wrenching, it still does a great job of telling the horrors of that day.

There's a lot more here, too, about other activities the allies were engaged in to help make the invasion successful. Probably one of Wayne's better films, and certainly his best war movie.

2) Band of Brothers (2001) Various Directors, Produced by Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks. Starring Damian Lewis, Donnie Wahlberg, Ron Livingston, others.

O.K. I know it's not a movie, technically. But I own this mini-series on DVD and have watched it several times.

I love the characters - many of which are based on real-life heroes - and the story-telling. The effects are incredible, as is the cinematography, the editing, and the soundtrack. If you get the chance, be sure to see this.

1) Saving Private Ryan (1998) Directed by Steven Spielberg. Starring Tom Hanks, Edward Burns, Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Adam Goldberg, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, and Matt Damon.

Bravo. I've never seen a movie that so realistically portrayed the horrors of combat. I felt like I was there on Omaha Beach that morning over 60 years ago and the things I witnessed horrified me. I just wanted it to stop. For me, "Saving Private Ryan" has set the standard by which all other combat films will be measured.

One other film of note worth mentioning is, "The Guns of Navarone."

Next up: My top 5 favorite Spy films OF ALL TIME.

My Top 5 Favorite Science Fiction Movies (OF ALL TIME!)

2009-02-23T12:19:00.001-08:00

I had to throw in that "OF ALL TIME" bit just for kicks (imagine the cavernous echo as you say it). The reality is, my top fives change with my mood, so don't hold me to this forever. After watching the fiasco that was the Oscars last night, I've decided to write my own lists of top five movies, by category. To start off, I'm listing my top 5 favorite SCI-FI movies- OF ALL TIME.

I'm intentionally leaving alien movies off my list for another category: Alien Movies. (Well, duh!)The same is true of '50s sci-fi movies, time-travel movies, apocalyptic movies, and one-guy-kicking-everybody-else's-butts movies. These all warrant their own categories.

Now, keep in mind that these are MY top five, not yours. So I really don't want to hear about how I couldn't possibly leave "Star Wars" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" off my list. I did, because they simply don't make my top five. I like them, but quite frankly, I think they are two of the most over-rated movies, OF ALL TIME.

So here they are, in reverse order, of course, with a brief description and rational as to why they made my list.

WARNING: SPOILERS may exist beyond this point! (Darth Vader is Luke's dad and Spock dies.)

5) Blade Runner (1982) Directed by Ridley Scott. Starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, M. Emmett Walsh, Daryl Hannah, Edward James Olmos, Sean Young, Joanna Cassidy, William Sanderson, and the late, but great Brion James.

"Blade Runner," based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is the tale of Rick Decker, an L.A. cop in the future who is hunting down and terminating a group of genetically-engineered "humans" who have returned to earth to meet their creator after having escaped from a deep-space work colony and having killed their keepers.

A lot of people say this is the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. I will admit, at the time it was released, it forever changed the way we would imagine our future. Of course, Ridley Scott changed the way we looked at space travel with 1978's "Alien," too.

My only real criticism of this film is, like 2001, it has some really tedious moments where the pacing is just a little too slow. Also, the studio ruined the film by adding Decker's ridiculous narration to help people who "didn't get it" understand what was happening. I won't watch any version other than the director's cut for that reason.For just about everyone in the cast, this film showcases their best performances on film. (Excepting Walsh and Olmos who have done other work that is even better.)

One more thing- Ridley said it: Decker is a replicant. Get over it. (When you stop and think for a moment, he had to be, or the unicorn at the end doesn't make sense!)

4) The Matrix (1999) Directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski. Starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving, and Joe Pantoliano.

The Matrix tells the tale of a future Earth that has been over-run by machines. Unawares, most humans are tied into a giant network where the energy their body innately generates is used to power the machine world. These humans live out their lives in a computer program where they believe life goes on as it always has.

This movie blew me away the first time I saw it, and it still does. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about this film, except that the sequels which followed it were far beneath the same level of story-telling that this first film achieved. The special effects in this film are awesome, too, but the story is unparalleled in science fiction movies.

3) The War of the Worlds (1953) Directed by Byron Haskin. Starring Gene Barry and Anne Robinson.

Based on H.G. Wells novel, this remains my favorite film version of this story. I loved Steven Spielberg's version, too, but it still takes a back seat to this 50's sci-fi classic. (Yes, it will be on my list of top 5 favorite 50's sci-fi films OF ALL TIME. Sheesh.)

The story basically revolves around a Martian invasion of Earth. All of mankind is doomed as the Martians move from one city to the next in indestructible hovering machines, destroying everything in their path. Man can do nothing to stop them. Even our most powerful weapon - the atomic bomb - has no effect on them and cannot penetrate their defensive shields. In the end, as our heroes are huddled in a church awaiting their own death, it is the microbes and the Viruses on earth to which the Martians succumb.

The acting in this film is over the top, but there are some indelible scenes and the story - which gives a nod to the Divine as the ultimate savior of mankind - is just great. Even the special effects still stand up to today's scrutiny. Great- and chilling - stuff.

2) The Fifth Element (1997) Directed by Luc Besson. Starring Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Gary Oldman, Ian Holm, Brion James, and Chris Carter.

Without a doubt, several of the reasons I love this film are the art direction, production design, soundtrack, and the costuming.

I've always been a big fan of Bruce Willis, too, who puts in a great performance as Korben Dallas, former space marine turned cab-driver who is down on his luck. Leeloo, played by Milla Jovovich lands in his cab, literally. Dallas must help Leeloo, the Fifth Element, complete her mission: to save Earth from a fast-approaching moon-sized ball of evil.

Jovovich is terrific in this role, having created a never-before heard language for her character, adding to her overall believability. Chris Carter adds the comic-relief as an over-the-top radio personality, and Oldman puts in another great bad-guy performance as Zorg, the guy in league with the approaching evil.

I love the sets, the costumes, the music, the special effects, the story- shall I go on? This is simply one of the greatest sci-fi films OF ALL TIME.

1) Planet of the Apes (1968) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner. Starring Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowell, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans, and Linda Harrison.

Deep-space pioneer Captain George Taylor finds himself stranded in the distant future (the 36th century or so) on a planet where humans are primitive and mute, and the Apes (Chimps, Orangutans, and Gorillas) are the higher-evolved beings who treat humans like animals. Of course, we learn in the end that Taylor isn't really so far from home, but that he is actually still on Earth, just in a distant and twisted future.

In addition to the incredible make-up effects created by John Chambers and his team, this film is raised to a level all its own by the social commentary, the great time travel story, and Heston's incredible performance. I never tire of this movie, or its sequels that expand on and explore the paradoxes of time travel like no other films have ever done before. They also deal with a post-nuclear apocalypse that, at the time, fed on my fears of nuclear war being a real possibility.

Admittedly, the sequels aren't as good as this first film (although I consider "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" to be the second half of the first film), but they do build on the mythology and raise the ultimate question of, "What came first, the chicken of the egg?"
And I love the dialog: "Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" How can you beat that?

So that's my top 5 sci-fi films OF ALL TIME. Next up: My top 5 war movies OF ALL TIME.

Never watching them again...

2009-02-23T07:20:00.001-08:00

Year after year, after year, I swear I am never watching the Oscars again. I watched most of them last evening, and I am, again, disgusted with the liberal, left-wing bias that makes Hollywood the cess pool it is.
I mean it this time: I am never watching the Oscars again.
Nor will I ever pay money again to watch a Sean Penn movie. The thought that my hard-earned dollar might go into his pockets, disgusts me.
Mickey- sorry that you didn't get what you so obviously deserved.

Happy upcoming birthday, Mr. Matheson.

2009-02-05T10:18:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote a post about John Llewellyn Moxey, a director who'd directed several of my favorite films, but a name that I'd been unaware of until recently.

Well, as an aspiring director and screenwriter, one would think I'd have a favorite screenwriter. Well, I don't know that I have just one, but one I've recently become aware of is Richard Matheson.

Matheson was born on February 20, 1926 in, of all places, New Jersey. He was raised in Brooklyn and started writing fiction as a child. Eventually, he would write the sci-fi classic, "I Am Legend," the source for Vincent Price's 1964 classic, "The Last Man on Earth," which Matheson also wrote the screenplay for, 1971's "Omega Man," starring Charlton Heston, and the more recent, "I Am Legend," starring Will Smith, released in 2007. All three of these movies are great, (Price's still being the best in my mind), and I own all of them on DVD. For this contribution alone Matheson is in my list of favorite screenwriters.

Yet over his career, Matheson has written a number of other highly-regarded horror, sci-fi, and fantasy stories and screenplays - many of them on my list of great movies. In 1956, Mateheson started his screenplay writing career with the adaptation of his novel, "The Shrinking Man" into the "The Incredible Shrinking Man," a film being remade in 2010.

In the early 60's Matheson wrote several classic episodes of "The Twilight Zone," including, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet," the episode featuring William Shatner as a passenger trying to warn others of the gremlin on the wing! Matheson also wrote for Shatner again in an episode of "Star Trek," in which Kirk is divided into two halves, called, "The Enemy Within."

Matheson continued to write for television and the screen throughout that decade until he wrote the screenplay for Steven Speilberg's "Duel." I own this classic on DVD and still love to watch that dirty old oil tanker chase down Dennis Weaver in the desert.

After writing several episodes for "Night Gallery," another show I own on DVD, Matheson penned, "The Night Stalker," the made for TV movie directed by John Llewellyn Moxey. Isn't it odd how things like this coincide? Again, as I mentioned in my tribute to Moxey, this is a classic I own. Matheson also wrote the follow-up, "The Night Strangler," available on the same DVD with "The Night Stalker."

In 1973, Matheson was the brain behind my favorite Dracula movie, "Dracula," starring Jack Palance as the evil Count. I love the end of this movie- which I won't spoil for you here.

Another unforgettable contribution of Matheson's was 1975's "Trilogy of Terror." The third installment of that trilogy was the story in which Karen Black's character was chased around her apartment by an animated Zuni fetish doll. This has come out on DVD while I wasn't watching and I hope to add this to my collection.

Then, in 1980, Matheson wrote the screenplay for "Somewhere in Time," the love story across time starring Jane Seymour and Christopher Reeves. My wife and I love this movie, own it, and have been to Mackinac Island several times, including our honeymoon.

Since then, his work has continued for television and the big screen with teleplays written for "Twilight Zone," "Amazing Stories," and the "Outer Limits," and screenplays written for "The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981)," "Jaws 3-D (1981)" and others. His novels were the inspiration for 1996's "What Dreams May Come," 1999's "Stir of Echoes," and of course, 2007's blockbuster, "I Am Legend."

So again, without even realizing it, I've found myself the owner of at least seven movies on DVD and several television episodes on DVD that were all written by or derived from the works of Richard Matheson. Wow.

Here's to you Mr. Matheson. If you are still with us, and I hope you are, may you enjoy a wonderful 83rd birthday on February 20th. I plan on watching several of your films that day just to celebrate.

Mmmmm, Sushi

2009-02-03T06:11:00.000-08:00

I love sushi and would eat it several times a week if I could afford to. In addition to trying several places near my home, I try to have sushi whenever I visit someplace. I've had sushi in Stamford, Hartford, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Nashville, Phoenix, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and places I can't even remember. Every place does it a little different.

I love Maguro (Tuna), Sake (Salmon), Tai (Red Snapper), Sea Bass (Suzuki) and Hirame (Fluke or Flounder). I eat these either as Nigiri-zushi - that is the fish served on a ball of rice, or as Sashimi, which is the fish by itself - no rice, etc., just the fish. My favorite here is Hirame, topped with delicately sliced scallions and ponzu sauce.

I also enjoy several types of Maki-zushi which is usually called a "roll." There is also Temaki-zushi, or TekaMaki which is also referred to as a "hand roll." The difference is that a roll is cut into several pieces - generally 4 to 8 - and a hand roll resembles an ice cream cone made of seaweed, or Nori, the actual name for the sheet they use to roll sushi. I do not care for the TekaMaki or Temaki-zushi as it is heavy on the Nori, a taste I don't care for much on its own.

Rolls, though, in which the Nori is well balanced with other ingredients, can be fantastic. Often, restaurants develop their own custom selection of rolls. I even have a roll named after me at a particular sushi restaurant. My favorites are the Shrimp Tempura roll (topped with eel sauce, please), Spicy Tuna roll, Salmon Skin roll, and my favorite of all, Spicy Scallop roll topped with a thin slice of lemon. The "Bobby Roll," is a spicy scallop roll topped with lemon and alvacado. Mmmm, Bobby Roll.

I was recently at a restaurant where they made a spicy scallop and lobster roll in a white Nori wrapper. It was amazing.

Another favorite of mine is Tobiko with quail egg. They make a small cup by wrapping a narrow sheet of Nori around a rice ball, then fill the cup with Tobiko- that is flying fish roe - and top it off with the yolk of a quail egg. Sound gross, doesn't it? The first time this was presented to me, 4 grown men deferred to one another, none having the courage to try it, myself included. I gave in and tried it.

I can't put into words how amazing it is. It remains one of my favorites.

I've also had baby octopus, regular octopus, fresh and sea-water eel, squid, jellyfish, Tomago (scrambled egg), Ebi (shrimp), mackerel, seared albacore, oysters, white tuna, green mussels, and even Uni (sea urchin). Some of them I've liked very much (seared albacore) and others, not-so-much (Uni).

I've also found that actually knowing something about what you're eating sometimes impresses the chef. On more than one occasion, I've had special dishes prepared and presented to my by the chef, free of charge: oysters on the half-shell, jellyfish, sashimi appetizers, baby octopus, and more.

I remain open to trying new things and expanding my palate. I even hope to someday try Fugu, the flesh of the poisonous puffer fish. Eat your heart out, Homer.

For more info about Sushi, check out: http://www.sushifaq.com

Someone, please tell me...

2009-01-20T12:05:00.000-08:00

Our new president keeps talking about hope and change. And many people I know are suddenly hopeful and excited about change.

But no one has been able to tell me what they are hopeful for. Moreover, no one can tell me what Obama hopes to change us to. Not all change is good. And hope is meaningless if you don't have something to hope for.

Thus far, at least five key member's of Obama's cabinet are former Clinton cronies- not to mention the most obvious and perhaps the most powerful member of that cabinet, Hillary.

So are we changing back? I hope not.

So, honestly, can someone tell me what we are suddenly all hopeful for and what changes are we expecting? Anyone?

Finally, free from The Village.

2009-01-15T12:08:00.000-08:00

Patrick McGoohan
19 March 1928 - 13 January 2009
Actor, Director, Writer, Husband and Father.

To many, Patrick McGoohan was the guy you loved to hate: Longshanks, King Edward I in "Braveheart," the Warden in "Escape from Alcatraz," Richard Devereau in "Silver Streak," or perhaps one of the arrogant villainous characters he played in "Columbo."

In reality, Patrick McGoohan had a long, varied, and impactful career as an actor spanning nearly 50 years, in which he played both villains and heroes. In addition to those titles I mentioned above, other highlights from McGoohan's film career include "A Time to Kill," "The Phantom," Cronenberg's twisted "Scanners," "Mary, Queen of Scots," "Ice Station Zebra," and even 1955's "The Dam Busters," in which he had an uncredited role as a guard.

Patrick McGoohan also had a long and rich television career as an actor and director. There were the unforgettable appearances on "Columbo," but he also starred in several series, including "Rafferty," "Danger Man," and of course, "The Prisoner."

Some consider "The Prisoner" to be the pinnacle of McGoohan's career. If you're not familiar with "The Prisoner," then you've missed out on one of the most unique social commentaries ever made, in addition to a really well written and crafted sci-fi drama that remains one of the greatest legacies of McGoohan's career and of the sixties.

Here's the story in a nutshell: A bond-like spy resigns in anger over an incident that remains unexplained. While packing to escape to some tropical locale on holiday, our secret-agent man is overcome by some noxious gas.

When he awakes, he awakes in a perfect replica of his home. But this version of his house is no longer in London, but in some unknown place - a quaint little community called, The Village.

The Village is a bureaucrat's paradise. Run by Number 2 (a role played by a new special guest each week) The Village is an inescapable prison that is operated by an unknown geo-political force.

An unseen No. 1 orders No. 2 to extract information from our hero, who is known to us only as No. 6. Ultimately, No. 2 is to discover the reason for No. 6 resigning in the fashion that he did. But No. 6 doesn't know who runs The Village and simply won't cooperate. Is it operated by his previous employer or is it run by the "other side?" They want information. They won't get it. Yet with every new episode, No. 2 and his Village cronies devise some new method to derive the information they want. When the new No. 2 fails, he is replaced by another, new No. 2.

This goes on for 17 episodes in all. Many of them are simply great. There are only one or two in the bunch that don't measure up to the overall caliber of the series. No argues that "Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darling" is probably the weakest episode, mostly because McGoohan isn't in it. They have another actor stand in for him who supposedly has No.6's intellect transferred into his body. Scheduling conflicts forced the production to come up with this cockamamie scheme to account for McGoohan's absence.

Some of the more memorable bits of the series are the huge underground domes that make up parts of the facility, the white, spinning, spherical chair in No. 2's office, the Rover - a large white sphere that chases down escapees - and The Village itself, which is the real life resort town of Portmeirion, in North Wales.

Two of the guest stars who play No. 2 are Leo McKern and Patrick Cargill, both stars of the Beatles' "Help," one of my all-time favorite movies.

The whole "The Prisoner" series is available on DVD - in 5 sets or one Megaset. You can watch the actual episodes online at http://www.amctv.com/videos/the-prisoner-1960s-video/.

While I may remember Mr. McGoohan mainly for his role in "The Prisoner," it would be unfair to sum up his career in one role. He brought a lot of hours of entertainment to millions as many different characters. There are many who would be envious of his career and his life.

Mr. McGoohan, hopefully, someday, we'll BCNU.

Thank you, Mr. Moxey, wherever you are.

2009-01-13T09:36:00.000-08:00

It’s rare that you find a director who is behind more than one or two films that you consider to be your favorites. For me, there are a handful of directors responsible for more than one film in my collection. Terry Gilliam is a personal favorite, having directed four films in my collection: “12 Monkeys,” “Brazil,” “Fisher King,” and “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” (“Time Bandits” is on my wish list.) I own seven of Spielberg’s films: “Duel,” “Raider of the Lost Ark,” “Hook,” “Jaws,” “Schindler’s List,” “Saving Private Ryan,” and “War of the Worlds.” Oh, I also own the Night Gallery pilot of which Spielberg directed one of the segments. I own four of Robert Rodriguez’s films: “Spy Kids (1, 2, and 3),” and “The Adventures of Shark-boy and Lava-girl.” My kids love those movies. Or how about Christopher Nolan’s work, “Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight,” “Memento,” and “The Prestige,” of which I own three and have a fourth on my wish list.

But how often is it that you own several of a director’s works, admire and wish to own several others of his catalog, and not even know the guys name or realize you liked his work? I discovered such a director this week and am ashamed to have not been aware earlier of this master’s volume of work. Maybe it’s because most of his work was for television?

John Llewellyn Moxey has 92 directorial credits on IMDB dating from 1955 to 1991. Some of those credits are for numerous episodes in a series. So in reality, he has well over 100 director credits. He has directed nearly 20 episodes of “Murder She Wrote,” six episodes of “Magnum P.I.,” 10 episodes of “Mannix,” (one of my all-time favorite series, by the way), seven episodes of “Mission Impossible,” (another favorite), seven episodes of “The Saint,” and one or two episodes for numerous other television series including, “Hawaii Five-O,” “Charlies Angels,” “Jake and the Fatman,” “Matlock,” and “Miami Vice.” There are many others, too many to mention here, but if you are interested, check out his IMDB entry.

I am certain that I’ve seen several of the episodes he’s directed. In fact, I’m collecting the “Mission Impossible” series. But it’s not his serial work that has drawn my admiration. Growing up in the Philadelphia area, we had some great Saturday afternoon movies, many of them old sci-fi movies. I have only recently discovered that several of those great movies – movies I either now own on DVD or am looking to purchase on DVD – are the work of Mr. Moxey.

In 1971, American households were entertained with the ABC Movie of the Week. There were some great movies that came out of this – all discussion for another entry. But one of them was a film called, “The Last Child,” starring Michael Cole of “Mod Squad” fame. This Moxley-directed story is about a fascist America in the near-future where families are limited to one child per household. A young couple is pregnant with their second child – the first having died – and they are on the run from the authorities. “The Last Child” is a great film in the tradition of all great sci-fi chase movies. I am desperate to find this on DVD somewhere.

The following year, Moxey was credited with directing the fantastic television pilot movie, “The Night Stalker.” This remains an all-time classic featuring Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak, the unrelenting reporter who stumbles across the most bizarre and creepy stories imaginable. The pilot has Kolchak in Las Vegas where he follows the clues to discover a real live vampire preying on the young women of Vegas. I own this on DVD.

Moxey's next directorial milestone was 1973’s Genesis II, a new Gene Roddenberry production about a scientist preserved in suspended animation who awakes in the distant future. There he discovers two warring cultures, each claiming to be the good guy. It’s up to him to discover which side truly holds the hope for Earth’s future, and which hopes to enslave Earth’s remaining inhabitants. I own this on a bootleg DVD and I hope, someday, it will be released professionally.

Another favorite directed by Moxey, that I also own on DVD, is “Where Have All The People Gone?,” a great sci-fi film made in 1974, starring Peter Graves, best known for his role as Jim Phelps on “Mission Impossible.” In this film, a family on a camping trip is protected from a cosmic event while exploring a cave. The unexplained event kills most of humanity, and the family is left to investigate what happened while they try to get home. Along the way are gruesome discoveries, crazed survivors, and ravenous wild dogs. It’s just great!

So, in terms of my level of appreciation for his directorial work, Moxey’s a guy who’s right up there with Spielberg, Gilliam, Rodriguez, and Nolan. I already own three of his films, several of his television episodes, and seek to own more if I can find them. I’m also going to go back and see which of his other films I can find on Netflix, etc. It is very likely that I will discover some other films he’s directed that I will like as much as the one’s I’ve already seen and own, or desire to own.

Before yesterday, I never knew Moxey's name or had any idea that he had directed so many of my all-time favorite films. I’ve had hours of enjoyment watching the product of his work and have never been able to acknowledge him – until now.

Thanks, Mr. Moxey, for your great film work.

Inspired by Facebook

2009-01-09T06:09:00.001-08:00

I was on Facebook this morning when I noticed an old friend had written something very interesting on someone's wall. My friends said that he felt he should rename Facebook, "Pastbook," as it had allowed him to re-connect with so many old friends or acquaintances.

That very same friend was the drummer in my first band, my college roommate, my housemate - my very best friend in the whole world. But as it tends to do, life got in the way and before I knew it, 6 or 7 years had gone by since we'd last spoken.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't that I hadn't tried to get in touch with him. I had moved to Phoenix, AZ, and he'd moved to a small town in the Poconos. I was busy with a growing career and building a family. He was busy with the things in his life, too, and without intending to, we just lost touch.

Until I signed onto Facebook, that is. Facebook had allowed me to reconnect with my friend from the past.

In general, I think the whole social networking thing is a waste of time. But our company is exploring new ways to leverage social networking as a new revenue channel or mechanism to increase traffic through out existing channels. So, I signed up on Facebook to become aware of what it was offering. I was afraid Facebook would be as convoluted a mess as MySpace is, but to my delight, I found Facebook was a much more elegant and - for lack of a better word - mature experience.

In addition to my "research" though, I've begun connecting with old friends and keeping better tabs on my more current friends. Connecting with those old friends has stirred a lot of memories. I've often threatened to write a book about all the crazy things that have happened in my life and with the stirring that has happened, I am even more encouraged to do so.

But then it occurred to me, I could just start telling all those old stories here, on my blog.

Stay tuned.

Finally arriving.

2009-01-06T11:28:00.000-08:00

For some time now, I've been trying to come up with a theme for a blog that will encourage and compel me to write more often. The problem is, my interest in one thing or another waxes and wanes. And once my interest in a particular topic has waned, I find it difficult to return to that blog and write new entries.

At first, I started with a blog that centered around my ideas about certain passages of Scripture in the Bible. And as much as I am intrigued by the Bible, I found myself frustrated when - with one or two exceptions for which I am grateful - my wife and sister seemed to be the only ones reading it. My ideas are legitimate and worthy of discussion, I'm sure, but just because you build a blog, that doesn't mean anyone will come. (Thanks for nothing, Costner.)

Then I started a blog about the little restuarants around my work place where I go for lunch. I thought I'd review their menus, service, etc. After all, I love food and what could be better to write about. Then the economy took a bit of a down-turn. We tightened our belts a bit to pay off some debt and I started packing my lunch. Humph. There goes that idea.

I thought a blog about home repair might be the ticket. I spent all that time working in a home center, going to home and hardware trade shows, selling hardware wholesale, and remodeling two - no, make that three - houses. This is something I know about! But I just don't have the time to dedicate to becoming THE online authority on hardware.

I then created a blog to reach out to Kevin Spacey (yeah, that's right, the actor) and ask him to read a screenplay I'd written for him. Surely, this is the best way to reach him, right? Sigh. My phone still isn't ringing, nor my email inbox a-stuffing.

So I figured, I'm just gonna start a blog and write about whatever I'm in the mood to write about on any given day. No theme, except Bobby's ramblings, rants, ponderings, annoyances, etc. Surely, someone will take interest in that. This is, after all, ME that I'm talking about ;)

Let me anticipate one of your first questions: Why the name, "Big Nasty Brain?" It's an inside joke.

Two years before we were married, I had taken Krista - my then fiance - to meet the clan: my Dad, Stepmother, and my brother and his family. That was no small feat as my brother lived on the Keewenaw penninsula on Michigan's famous Upper Penninsula (UP).

So as to not retrace the path by which we had come entirely, I plotted a return course to Pennsylvania that went through Sault Ste. Marie, MI, across the border into Canada, along the northern shore of the Georgian Bay (part of Lake Huron) and across the Manitoulin Island to the small town of South Baymouth. Once there, the trek continued across the bay on the Chi-CheeMaun ferry to Tobermory, ON. From there, we traveled to Niagara Falls, and back into the U.S. near Buffalo.

In 1995, we were married, and my wife Krista and I honeymooned on Mackinac Island, Michigan. It was a blast, and on our first anniversary, in 1996, we asked some friends, Mike and Laura D., to stay on Mackinac Island and then travel with us to visit some of the great places we'd been to during that first trip to Michigan.

We'd spent 3 or 4 days on Mackinac Island with the D's and decided to head north from there to Whitefish Point and visit the shipwreck museum there. That afternoon, we travelled to Sault Ste. Marie (our joyous day interupted only by a speeding ticket) and we discovered the Lockview restaurant across the street from the Soo Locks. It was a Friday evening and their special was all-you-can-eat whitefish, prepared however you like: broiled, pan fired, batter dipped, or cajun. We've been back many times since.

The Lockview Restaurant in Sault Ste. Marie, MI

After an amazing meal, we wandered to our hotel on the Canadian side. Once we were checked in, we decided to play Scrabble before bed. I was tired and feared that I wouldn't play well, but everyone was up for it, so who am I to say no?

Now, I do fancy myself a fairly good Scrabble player. I love word games, like Boggle, etc. But I rarely find an opportunity to use all my letters in a single turn and get a Bingo. So when it does happen, I am rather pleased. That night I was able to spell out 'Podiatry.' Michael looked at it and sounded out, 'Poh-dee-at-ree.' "Hunh?" he asked. I explained what podiatry was - and how it was pronounced- and was awarded a butt-load of points.

Being tired, not of the game, but from the day, I leaned back and sighed, closed my eyes for a moment and ran my fingers through my hair. And that's when someone - I'm pretty sure it was my wisenheimer wife - responded to the word I had played and my subsequent actions with, "Awww, is the big nasty brain tired." All with a perfectly sarcastic and patronizing tone.

After a howl and a good laugh from the others, it instantly became my nickname. Bnb, for short.

So there it is. The story behind the name of this blog. Let's hope this one sticks and I'll actually write something once in a while.

Gettng Started - A Basic Toolbox: Part 3

2008-05-20T13:50:00.001-07:00

A post from an earlier blog, Handy Dandy Man

Flashlight. Two schools of thought here: get one that you can set down and shine where you need it, great if your under sinks, etc. or one that you can hold in your teeth. Or do what I've done and get a few - one for each occasion.

Circuit Tester. If you plan to do electrical work, this is a must. You can get a simple two-pronged tester that you stick into an outlet to see if the outlet is hot or not for about $2-$3. Of course, I prefer something more like the Fluke 1-AC11 Volt Alert. This great little tester can sense a live line even through the wire insulation. Just touch the tip to a wire, outlet, etc. and it will alert you to a live line. Great for trying to figure out which wires are live when you have a bundle of lines.

Hacksaw. Essential for cutting metal plumbing pipes and cutting any kind of metal rod or channel. What matters more here is the blade you use. I prefer Lenox brand blades for my hacksaws.

Adjustable Utility Knife. There are many out there: ergonomically designed, quick blade changing features, etc. A good one will run you about $4-$6. No need to go nuts here. Just make sure it's decent quality and that your blades are very good. Dull or cheap blades won't cut, just adding to your frustration and the likely-hood you might have an accident with the knife. ALWAYS cut away from your body.

File and Rasp. I keep what's called a 4-in-hand 10" rasp that is flat on one side and rounded on the other- rough on one end and finer on the other. I may not use it often, but it's good to have around when you need to take off "just a little bit."

Awl. Great for starting screws, marking drill holes, and starting drill holes so the bit won't slide. Also good for digging at or chipping things when necessary.

Torpedo Level. At the very least, you should have torpedo level for being certain that pictures hang evenly, etc. I have 4 levels: * A torpedo level * 2' level * 4' level * Line level Buying tip: Spend the extra money to buy the aluminum level. Plastic levels can warp and twist, causing thelevel to become useless.

Try Square. Any time you need to draw a straight line that is square or to check square on a piece that has been cut, or to be certain a corner is square, you'll want to have a try square. If you have the budget, a framing square can be valuable as well.

Miter Box and Miter Saw. If you plan to do any mitered cuts- baseboard, corner round, any molding, or picture frames, etc., then a miterbox and a good miter saw is important to have. You don't need anything incredibly expensive, but solidly built with a decent saw.

Caulk Gun/Caulk. I use a hex-rod caulk gun with a tip cutter and a hole puncher. I also keep a tube or two of latex-based caulk with silicone in both white and clear, and several tubes of Liquid Nails on hand.

Collection of Fasteners. This includes some 6d nails, 1-1/4" coarse drywall screws, 2" x #10 pan-head metal screws, tacks, 4d brads, and a few 1/4" lag screws. I also have an assortment of #8-32 and #10-24 screws.

I recommend an assortment of drywall anchors. If you can find them, Toggler makes an assortment that I highly recommend.

Picture Hanging Hardware. My favorite is harware by OOK.

Duct Tape. If you can't fix it with duct tape, it can't be fixed. ;) Keep a roll on hand. Again, don't be tempted to buy the cheap stuff. If you can get it, Duck brand is good stuff.

Electrical Tape. A must for electrical work.

Teflon Tape (Plumbing). It's necessary to tape any joint where water will be running under pressure. This stuff is very inexpensive ($.50), so keep a roll or two on hand at all times.

A keyhole saw

3/8" Socket wrench and ratchet set.

Oh, and uh, a Toolbox. Make sure you get one large enough to accomodate all your tools. You may want to consider a tote of sorts in which you can carry a subset of your tools- just the ones you need for a particular job.

Getting Started - A Basic Toolbox: Part 2

2008-05-19T19:36:00.000-07:00

A post from my earlier blog, The Handy Dandy Man.

Screwdrivers. Yes, that's right, plural. At the very least you will need two: a slotted screwdriver and a #2 Phillips-head screwdriver. I have over a dozen screwdrivers and could use more. At the very least, you should have the ones I've recommended here. I commonly use:

4" x 3/16" slotted driver (recommended)
4" x 1/4" slotted driver(recommended)
Stubby 3/16" slotted driver
2" 3/32 slotted driver
4" #2 Phillips-head driver (recommended)
4" #1 Phillips-head driver (recommended)
Stubby #2 Phillips-head driver
2" #0 Phillips-head driver
A set of 6 jewelers screwdrivers: 4 slotted; 2 Phillips-head

Cordless Drill/Screwdriver. You will most likely use this tool more than you can imagine. If not, you're probably not using it for everything you could.

Get a good one. I have two. Thanks to my brother, I now own a Makita 18v Lithium-Ion 1/2" Driver Drill (BDF452HW). I'd be lost without this tool- the most-often used tool in my collection.

O.K., Here we go. Part 2 of putting together the basic toolbox.

Don't settle for less than professional on this tool. I recommend Makita, DeWalt, Milwaukee, Bosch, or Rigid. Tools by Black & Decker, Ryobi, or Skil tend to be more affordable, but lack the same power and durability of the names I mentioned earlier.

Remember, if you buy an inexpensive tool designed for the homeowner who will use it only occassionaly, it may not last as long or perform as well as a more expensive tool designed for the professional. You may end up spending your money twice. Spend your money right the first time and buy a better tool. Trust me, you won't regret this decision.

For quick small jobs, I also own a small, inexpensive, 3-position, electric screwdriver (Black & Decker Model 9078).

Set of Drillbits and Drivers. Get a small set of drill bits- usually 1/16" through 3/8" is enough, but if you can, get a set that has a 1/2" with a 3/8" shaft. You may also want to consider a set of paddle bits for doing larger holes, up to 1" or more.

In regards to drivers, I have a "Speed-Lok" set of drivers and bits that allows me to quickly change between drill bits and screwdriver bits (Craftsman Model #26144).

Slip-joint or "alligator" pliers. These are essential for holding and gripping...whatever. They're ideal for tightening or loosening various sizes of nuts or other threaded connectors. They can also be used to grip and remove things, such as pulling out small nails, tacks, or staples. They are truly a multi-purpose tool that is essential to any toolbox.

Needle-nose pliers are essential for doing electrical work (bending wires to fit around the switch or duplex screws) and for getting into any tight space where you need to grip something. Some come with side cutters which are very convenient to have if doing a lot of wiring.

Tongue-and-groove pliers. Often called "Channellocks" after a popular manufacturer of the tool, these are great for doing plumbing work as they can often open wide enough to fit around 1-1/4" or 1-1/2" drain pipes. Again, though, this tool has many uses.

Adjustable Wrench. If you ever intend to turn nuts or similarly-shaped items (e.g. water and gas connectors), you gotta have at least one of these. I have a set of 4 - different sizes for different jobs. It's often difficult to get into a tight space with a large adjustable wrench, and smaller ones don't open wide enough to accomodate larger turning surfaces. I recommend at least two- a larger one and a smaller one.

Diagonal Cutters. Not just for electrical work, these can also be used to cut through small brads, nails, staples, etc. You will find ways to use these. They are ideal for pulling staples out after removing flooring or carpet.

Vise-Grips or locking pliers. If you need to hold something and wish you had that third hand- that's what locking pliers are for. While I don't use these often, a small set (usually 2 or three) will cover jsut about all of your needs.

Allen or hex wrench set. Seems you can't buy anything today that doesn't utilize an Allen or hex screw, especially ready-to-assemble furniture. A small set isn't all that expensive and you'll be glad you have them when the need arises. Here's a tip: Buy a set that is both SAE (Standard American Equivalent) and metric. Many of the RTA furniture makers are Asian or European and they tend to use metric fasteners.

Set of combination wrenches. There are times when having a closed or box wrench is just necessary. Where a plier or adjustable wrench is just too cumbersome or keeps slipping off the nut or hex bolt, nothing is better than a box wrench. An adequate set is about $25-$35.

Stay tuned for Part 3, Knives, Saws, Tapes, etc.

Getting Started – A Basic Toolbox: Part 1

2008-05-19T08:34:00.000-07:00

A previous post on my blog, The Handy Dandy Man

Every homeowner who plans to tackle projects around the home should have a basic toolbox. Each homeowner's toolbox is likely to vary from one to the next based on the type and size of the projects you hope to take on.

There's a saying – one among many in the fix-it business – about having the right tool for the job. Nothing could be more vital to your success with home improvement projects than having the tools you need and knowing what tools or materials are available to help you succeed.

This isn't something you'll learn overnight. There are thousands of tools out there- variations on variations - and some are highly-specific in nature. Don't be scared off. Ninety percent of what you'll want to do around the house can be done with a modest set of tools that you can find in any good hardware store or home center.

Don't skimp on quality when buying tools. While you may not need the absolute best tool, you should buy a reliable tool that will last you a lifetime. Wherever possible, buy tools that carry a life-time warranty and are made with the best materials and crafmanship. In terms of hand tools, some of the brands you can trust are Stanley, Craftsman, True Value Master Mechanic Line, Irwin, and Channellock. If you can afford it, Snap-on and Mac are other great professional-quality tools.

Let's start with the tools every toolbox should have.

A Hammer. It doesn't get more basic than that. A good 16 oz. claw-hammer will do. The claw refers to the split, back-end of the hammer that is used to pull out nails. I prefer a one-piece all-metal drop forged hammer that has a rubber or leather grip. (I use an Estwing Model E16C leather grip hammer.)

There is an advantage to an all-metal hammer over a hammer with a wooden or fiberglass handle in that it will never break. It is possible to break a two-piece hammer if the handle is struck with force against a stationary object- which can happen if you swing and miss. And, I've seen poorly made wooden-handle hammers break under normal use. Again, don't skimp and buy cheap stuff.

Whatever you choose, most importantly, get a hammer that feels comfortable in your grip. Nothing can kill your DIY buzz like a hammer that hurts to use.

Safety Goggles. Everytime you use that hammer - or any tool that can result in flyng debris, like a saw, or chisel - wear those goggles.

25' Tape Measure. Another one of those sayings: Measure twice, cut once. Buy a reliable tape measure that has a nice stiff blade, one that will stand straight when extended to 8 or more feet. There are all kinds of tapes out there to choose from. Two features you might consider: a rubberized edge that won't cause any damage to marterials if it's dropped; a bright color so your tape is easily seen on the job site. You'd be surprised how many times I've looked for my tape and forgotten where I set it down. A bright yellow or orange tape is easy to see.

Check back soon for part 2 when we add screwdrivers and wrenches.

Keeping it real.

2008-01-04T06:59:00.000-08:00

A post from my earlier blog, Screenplay for Kevin Spacey. Enjoy.

Many people aspire to things they simply aren't capable of doing.

With this in mind, I do a daily gut check, considering myself with sober judgement. The question I need ask is this: is the material I'm writing really that good? Or am I fooling myself? Have I deluded myself into chasing an unrealistic dream that I simply don't have the talent to achieve?

I think that's the difference between me and those poor saps who show up on American Idol's auditon episodes. When those pathetic people audition, one must wonder if anyone has ever been honest with them in assessing their talent and their abilities.

America has created a culture wherein people aspire to celebrity. Young girls (and boys) locked away in their rooms croon into the mirror imagining themselves the next Agulara, Timberlake, or Spears. Meanwhile, their well-intentioned mothers, not wishing to discourage their children, support and encourage their unrealistic pursuits.

So, what ensues is public humiliation on a national scale. Simon berates these delusional pop-star wannabes (rightfully so) and is perhaps the first honest voice they've heard regarding their lack of talent.

I've had partnerships in the past that didn't work out because the material my collaborators were cranking out just didn't live up to my standards. I know that sounds arrogant, but it's not intended to be. I just have to believe in what I'm doing or I can't pass it off as such.

Occasionally, I will give a new friend a CD of material I wrote, performed, and produced when I was in a band in the 90's. There is always this awkward pause and I can hear them saying, "oh no, please don't expect me to listen to your horrible garage band..."

I always laugh when they come back later and say, "Hey, I listened to your CD. That was pretty good." They smile at me with relief that it wasn't some horrible cacophany of badly tuned guitars and an unending drivel of cliched lyrics. The reality is, I wouldn't offer them the CD if I didn't believe it to be good.

I understand their apprehension. Because there ARE those who can't sing, or write, yet they think they are great. I call those people delusional.

Mr. Spacey, I assure you I am not delusional. The screenplay I've written is unique, clever, captivating, and perfect for your next project.

That whole liability thing...

2008-01-02T11:28:00.000-08:00

A post from my earlier blog, Screenplay for Kevin Spacey. Enjoy.

Yeah, I know that most actors won't accept/read/consider unsolicited works. But then again, that's the whole idea behind this blog.

I'm not wasting one more tree on sending an unsolicited script to anyone in the 'biz.' Furthermore, I'm not really interested in getting into the 'biz.' Sure, some may think the easier route is to conform to the system and hope that some one likes their stuff enough to give them a break... Geez. Give me a break.

Some time ago, when I first started this whole screenwriting thing, an actor friend of mine in Hollywood told me to do it myself. "Do it independently," he said. "Hollywood will ruin it."

Have you ever read the requirements for gaining admittance to the writers guild? You have to write so many hours of produced material to be considered for the guild. Catch is, you have to be a member of the guild to write for active productions.

Figure that one out.

Heck, no wonder Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino gave up their membership to the directors guild.

You know, the truth is, I want to do this independently. When I think of all the projects that have been ruined by mindless studio execs, I can say with great certainty that I don't want them involved.

Wait - I hear it now: "But doing films independently - that takes a lot of money!" True. So how do you raise money? You package your film with great talent so investors will bite. Independent doesn't have to mean cheap. Just ask Mel Gibson.

Besides, I don't think the trouble is in getting great talent to do your film. That happens all the time. And Kevin Spacey, for all I can tell, is one of those guys who likes the independent film thing. (He did, after all, start Triggerstreet.com to help aspiring writers and directors find a place to collaborate and develop their craft.)

I think the real challenge is in getting your work into the hands of that great talent. You have to do what you can to get the actor you want to read your stuff. And that seems to happen a lot, too. Actors come by scripts through all kinds of channels.

And the route I'm taking here (not necessarily the only route, mind you) is to try and get Mr. Spacey to contact me - to actually solicit the material. Get it? If he is interested in checking it out, then he can arrange for the screenplay to go through all the right channels.

Then it's just a matter of him being convinced that the role is for him - and believe me, it is.

By the way: If you happen to know Bono (yes, the singer from U2), Julia Roberts, Jay Leno, Kyra Sedgwick, and/or Janeane Garofalo, let me know. I've got parts for them in this screenplay, too.

Keep the faith.

Why not just send him the screenplay?

2007-12-12T07:49:00.000-08:00

A post from my earlier blog, Screenplay for Kevin Spacey. Enjoy.

So, realistically, this is how it works in "the biz:" I gotta know someone who knows someone that knows Kevin Spacey.

To go the traditional route, I'd have to start with a bunch of letters of introduction to every literary agency or screenwriter representative who is willing to be solicited. IF I can even find out who THEY are, I'd most-likely discover that there are very few of those, and generally, the ones who are receptive are not necessarily the ones I'd want representing me.

IF- and that's a HUGE IF - someone actually were to read my letter of introduction, and bite on my initial idea, they might request a synopsis (or a logline) of my screenplay. And, if they are still compelled, then they might ask me to send them a few pages of the screenplay. Now, months after I've started this process, if all the forces in the universe align, not only might they actually LIKE my script, but they might even be in the market for my idea!

Now come the lawyers... (Let's pretend that all goes well and doesn't take many more months.)

Then, someone might offer to represent me. But having representation doesn't guarantee the sale of my work to a producer or a studio. My work could sit unread for years, or if I were lucky, circulated around the industry for years.

Let's pretend for a moment that a studio does like my work and wants to buy it. Chances are, they will hire an established writer to come in and "tweak" my screenplay. And IF my idea finally gets made and released, who gets the screenwriting credit? That's right. I'd be lucky if I even get credit for the story idea. (Just think- if someone did like the movie and they went looking for the writer- who would they call? Me or the tweaker?)

Or, maybe I solicit the agent or manager of the talent I want to engage. Most often, without an invitation to send the screenplay, the screenplay will end up in the circular file. If the talent should end up in a movie similar to mine, then I could theoretically turn around and sue them by suggesting that they stole my idea. So the general practice is to not even open unsolicited material.

But even if the agent or manager did open the work and read it, they often see themselves as some kind of gatekeeper and will often not expose the artist to the work unless they feel that it might further the artist's career. I can appreciate that, I guess, but how many opportunities for a great role have gone to someone else because a manager or agent thought they knew better?

It's really about who I know and if I can get them to take the time to care about my work the way that I do. Good luck accomplishing that. Hey, let's be honest, it takes time to read a screenplay. Who has the time to sit down and read my pages? Why should they? Yeah, I might think the screenplay is great, but I might be delusional. (I'm not. Really, I mean it.)

So I'm going this route. HEY MR. SPACEY, READ MY SCRIPT- YOU'LL LOVE IT!

By the way, if you happen to know the guy, how about sending him to this blog?

Is this a joke?

2007-11-28T11:45:00.000-08:00

An earlier post from my other blog, Screenplay for Kevin Spacey. Enjoy.

This is serious. I know that some of you reading this may be laughing, thinking this is a real ha-ha. Well, let me assure you, I am not laughing.

O.k. perhaps I am chuckling a bit.

But seriously, I have written a screenplay for Mr. Spacey. I wrote my lead character with him in mind. Heck, Mr. Spacey is one of the characters in the story. Imagine how hard it would be to make a movie in which Kevin Spacey is one of your lead characters without having Kevin Spacey play himself? That would just be crazy.

There I've said the word that most of you are thinking: crazy.

Let me assure you, I am not a psychopathic celebrity stalker. Nor am I delusional. I'm merely an aspiring filmmaker and screenwriter who knows that sometimes things like this work. Sometimes, someone who reads stuff like this actually knows the person you're trying to reach and then- snap - the connection is made and who knows where it might go from there?

So, Mr. Spacey, if you're reading this, I have a great story for you to read and consider for one of your next projects. I'm happy to tell you all about it or send you a synopsis, or forward the script to your agency or manager.

I just want to know that you've had a chance to consider the piece. I think you'll like it.

And if you're reading this and you happen to know Mr. Spacey, boy, I'd sure appreciate any help you could offer in helping me reach him.

I'll keep you up to date on the effort.

Yours,

Bobby Foster, aspiring filmmaker.

Monuments and Milestones.

2007-09-04T11:43:00.000-07:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

I recently was asked by my 7-year old daughter what it meant to hear from God. She wanted to know what his voice sounded like. Could I actually hear his voice?

Let me say first, in all humility, that it is rare that I hear from God. His word is for me, as it is for most of His children, sufficient enough. The only time I really hear from the Lord is when, in my own stiff-neckedness, I have reached an impass and I need to hear His voice to nudge me beyond it.

So, I tried to explain to her that I don't actually hear a voice, but rather, deep inside, a thought comes to me in a small still voice that I recognize as not being my own. Usually it's only a few words, and with those words comes a deep and complete understanding of God's will in the issue.

I am humbled when I think about the prophets of the old testament and how often God spoke to them. Even moreso when I think about how little and rarely He spoke to some of them - for God to speak to me at all is amazing.

I was trying to provide my daughter with an example, and to my shame, I struggled to recall some of those moments. How could I not remember???

It was then that I recalled the monuments that the patriarchs laid to revisit and recall the great things that God had done. One, because we forget, and two, because the enemy seeks to distort the truth and will make us doubt that which we should be sure of because God as approved it with great and mighty acts.

When God has spoken to us, that event should be so great in our minds and so remembered that we never fall into the same trap we were in when He spoke to us.

So, with that in mind I have decided to start a record of the times and things God has shown me and spoken to me to reaffirm His will and His love.

Genesis 1:1... More thoughts: The implications of being the created and not the Creator.

2007-03-23T11:03:00.000-07:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

Being the Creator, God knows everything there is to know about His creation. He understands the detailed workings of our planet and the universe around us. He is the architect and has knowledge about the systems around us that we cannot begin to comprehend.

He understands us - mankind - better than we do ourselves. Not just the physical workings of our bodies, but the mechanics of our inner most selves- emotions, psychosis, fears, etc. He created us to emote, empathize, sympathize, and so on.

He even came and dwelt as one of us lest we ever doubt that He can't possibly relate to us or understand us, because we believe Him to be so distant and unavailable. He already understood- but just to prove it to us, He sacrificed it all to be one of us.

He also knows the end from the beginning. He is surprised by nothing and has anticipated everything. He exists outside the limits of our dimensionality and - as is proven in the creation - can manipulate the very cosmos at will.

So what does that mean to us? What are the implications of being the creature in the creation that was created by an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God? (These aren't enough words to really describe Him, but you get the picture.)

Besides realizing that He is in charge and not us, what it should mean to us is this: There is no one greater that we can trust than the One who made us and made everything around us. His will WILL be done, so the most logical response we can have is to yield to Him and trust Him.

Kicking against the goads and rebelling against God merely shows that we have no real understanding of who He is, who we are, and how it all fits together. How can we, finite and incapable, ever hope to control our surroundings or our path in life? The world is spinning though space at thousands of miles an hour, on a path to... what? Trying to control one's surroundings, destiny, etc. can only lead to madness.

Obedience and trust in God is the only way of living that makes any sense. He made me, loves me, has a purpose for me, and knows my future. He knows the path that our world is on and is in total control of it.

To rest in Him is the only way one can have real peace.

Genesis 1:1... In the Beginning

2007-03-20T12:39:00.000-07:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Heaven and earth is all-encompassing.

The Hebrew word for heaven is "shamayim" which is used for all three definitions of heaven or heavens: the sky and the earth's atmosphere; the stars and all the expanding universe; the dwelling place of God. So, when the scripture says that God created the heaven(s) it means pretty much everything the we imagine exists beyond our physical world: the stars, space dust, the other planets - including anything that exists on those planets - and so on. (I don't want to get too specific as we don't really know for certain what exists out there, but suffice it to say that there is a whole lotta stuff out there.)

In regards to the earth, that includes the animals, the plants, the land, the seas, the sky, all the elements, the electromagnetic fields that hold molecular structures together, and just about everything else you might think of, even man.

In a nutshell, God created everything we know, have yet to know, and ever will know. He alone is responsible for its creation (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3, Col 1:16), its ongoing existence (Col. 1:17), and ultimately, for its destruction (2Pet 3:10, Rev. 21:1).

God existed before He created anything. Everything He created belongs to Him. It is of, by, and for Him and He can do with it as He pleases. We are in no position to question God, to question His acts, or to question His motives. We are one more piece of His creation to do with as He pleases - completely subject to His will.

God owes us nothing.

He has given us everything.

It's important to gain perspective and remember that "I" am not in control. If anything, "I" should tremble in fear and awe of Him and His creation. This is the building block upon which everything I know and do should be built. Then, when I look at the way He desires to know me, to engage with me, to sacrifice for me, I am beyond words. I am silenced by His amazing mercy and unfathomable grace.

"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!"- Psalm 8

Honor from men.

2006-06-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

"I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that [cometh] from God only?" John 5:41-44

In our home fellowship, this is the passage we studied on Sunday. It was very timely for me.

Recently, I've been feeling defeated and overcome with disappointment. Several events have brought me to this, the details of which are not important. Let's just say, I'm feeling as though my life hasn't amounted to much, and when I look around me, I am frustrated because I feel that I could do as well, if not much better, than those around me who are "succeeding."

My wife, who is much more of a blessing than I generally understand, faithfully reminds me that success in the eyes of man is not the same as success in the eyes of God and that I should be thankful for God's many blessings and recognize the successes that I have had.

Jesus' words are very timely for me. Our lives are not about the rewards or accolades of men. Faithfulness to God is real success. I must seek His approval, not man's.

I abandoned writing this Blog a long time ago because I didn't think anyone was reading and that what I was writing was of no significance. Essentially, I believed that no one cared.

I was wrong.

If God has called me to write this Blog, then I need to do it regardless of the number of eyes that find it. If one person reads my words and is somehow led closer to God, then that is all that matters. If I am led closer to God in the writing, then it is a valid exercise. God has taught me that, sometimes, it is in the doing of a thing, and not the thing itself, that His will is made manifest.

So, starting today, with this article, I will be posting much more frequently. I wasn't sure that I would have a whole lot to write about - until the Lord gave me a great idea yesterday.

My next entry will be on Genesis 1:1. That will be followed by Genesis 1:2, and so on. Maybe some days will be more than 1 verse. All I know, is that I am beginning a journey and, if you read this, I hope that you'll join along the way.

Yours in Him,

Adopted Son.

A Plague of Locusts

2005-02-18T08:53:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

The Revelation Chapter 9, Verses 1-11

“1 Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit. 2 And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace. So the sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit. 3 Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth. And to them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. 4 They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 And they were not given authority to kill them, but to torment them for five months. Their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6 In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will desire to die, and death will flee from them.

"7 The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. 8 They had hair like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. 10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power was to hurt men five months. 11 And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is ‘Abaddon,’ but in Greek he has the name ‘Apollyon.’”

Recently, I have completed a screenplay based on the book of The Revelation. Unlike many other screenwriters who have previously tackled the material, I have wanted my tale to be a matter-of-fact action/adventure/thriller that adhered more-closely to the original text.

My brother and I have seen just about every movie there is about the end times and have yet to see one done well or one that didn’t stray so far from the source material as to be downright ludicrous. My ultimate goal for the screenplay is to see it made into a professionally done film with quality that is on par with Hollywood's best. I have also hoped to make an accurate telling of the story that will entertain and maybe educate - not merely to convert unbelievers through the medium of fear.

So, I studied a lot. I've already taught the book of The Revelation many times before and I felt I had a solid grasp of the material. But of course, every time I've studied or taught the book, I've discovered something new that alters my understanding of it. So it was, during the time I worked on the screenplay, I discovered many little things in the text that made me pause to consider my then-current understanding. But there is one thing in particular that really stood out.

When I got to dealing with the locusts in Revelation 9, I had no idea where to start or how to work them into the storyline. The passage has always been one of interest. I can hearken back to those who believed The Beatles were somehow connected to Revelation 9 because of John Lennon and Yoko Ono's avant-garde piece on The Beatles' White Album called Revolution 9. They also believed the locusts were The Beatles because of the description found there in the passage: they had long hair like women, but faces of men; their breastplates were interpreted to be electric guitars and the stinging tails were the cables that ran from their guitars to their amps; their loud music affected two thirds of the world and caused pain for 5 months, etc.

This particular interpretation was of little or no use to me. I was quite sure I couldn’t get Paul McCartney to appear in my movie.

I needed to fictionalize the account of the locusts without betraying the original meaning of the text. I didn't want to allegorize them as helicopters, etc. It was obvious, to me, from their description that they were demonic at the least. So I began to meditate on the locusts and who they might be.

What I ultimately discovered helped me put together some of the most bizarre passages of scripture into a clearer picture that I had never seen before.

Genesis 6, verses 1 and 2 read, "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"

Genesis 6:2 says that the sons of God - the ben elohiym - took whichever women they wanted as wives because they were beautiful. The Hebrew "ben elohiym" is a term that speaks directly of the angelic realm. “Ben elohiym” translates to “Sons of God” and is used only of those beings that are “directly” created by God: Adam and the Angels.

Let's hold our thumb here in Genesis for a moment and look at an interesting verse in Jude. Jude verse 6-7 says, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

I believe that the passage in Genesis 6 speaks of the same angels spoken of in Jude - angels who left heaven, took on a human-like form, and then took for themselves human wives.

Genesis 6:4 reads, "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

These unions of fallen angels and humans resulted in numerous mutations - giants that were the “mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” I suggest that this is the historical basis for Greek and Roman mythologies. Apollo, Hercules, and Zeus: these characters were likely based on the genetically corrupted offspring of human women and angels. The giants spoken of in this passage were the ancestors to the Moabites, the Ammonites, and in particular, those like Goliath.

The Hebrew word that is translated as “giants” is “Nephilim” from the root word, “naphal” which means “cast down, or fallen.” “Nephilim” means “fallen ones.” Are these giants the offspring of “fallen” angels, the ben elohiym – those spoken of in Genesis 6:1&2 and Jude verse 6?

Genesis 6:9 reads, "This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God."

Finally, Genesis 6:12 reads, "So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth."

It would seem that Noah was pure and undefiled as described above in verse 9. Yet, as indicted in verse 12, the rest of the world had, “corrupted their way on the earth.”

Was God’s reason for destroying the Earth to purify it of demonic corruption and to save Noah and his family from it? There are those who suggest that Satan hoped to corrupt the human race by defiling it and, in so doing, prevent the coming of the Messiah. Although his evil plan was delayed by the flood, it would seem that Satan tried again as indicated in verse 4, where it reads, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward…”

It would seem that these fallen angels were involved with human-kind not only before the flood, as described in Genesis chapter 6, but also after the flood. Did their corruption of the human race involve not only intermarriage, but also the promotion of godless sexual behavior, like that described in Genesis 19 and spoken of in Jude verse 7? Was the godless hedonism of Sodom and Gomorrah demonically influenced?

Sodom and Gomorrah were huge cities and would be ideal places to concentrate a plan devised to corrupt all of human flesh once more.

Let’s leave Jude for a moment and go to Romans, the first chapter, verses 26 and 27.

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

“27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

In context, Paul is talking about those who have forsaken the self-manifested evidence of God and sought after the lusts of the flesh. God “gave them up” to the basest acts of hedonism, including homosexuality.

A side note…

God is a God of passion and conviction and desires that we be people of passion and conviction.

The Revelation 3:15-16 reads, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

If we love Him, he desires that we love him with all our heart! “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.” (Mar 12:30) As a result, the scripture is clear that if we seek God and love him, He will reinforce that love.

Likewise, if we hate God, it would seem He wants us to do it with our all. In the Exodus story, Pharaoh hardened his heart 7 times before God hardened his heart even more.

It’s as though the Lord is saying, “Do you love me? Then love me with all you have! Be passionate about it. Here, let me help you love me more. Do you hate me? Then don’t be wishy-washy about it- hate me with passion. Here, let me help.”

Now, let me get back to my original point.

In Jude verse 6, we read “kept not their first estate” and verse 7, “going after strange flesh” which reminded me of Romans chapter 1, verse 27, “leaving the natural use.” How are angels related to human homosexual behavior?

It was interesting to me that Jude verse 7 likens “the angels which kept not their first estate” to “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.” Jude seems to make a correlation between the two.

With this in mind, there seemed, to me, to be a tie-in between the homosexual behavior in Sodom and Gomorrah and “the angels which kept not their first estate.” So again, I ask, was the godless hedonism of Sodom and Gomorrah demonically influenced? Were the fallen ben elohiym there in Sodom and Gomorrah encouraging “fornication, and going after strange flesh?”

Remember that screenplay?

I began with the premise that perhaps someone was spelunking in a deep cave when suddenly confronted by escaping winged demoniacs. So I asked the question, “where is the deepest cave on earth.” My research led me to discover that most deep caves have very narrow passages and forcing a thick black cloud of demoniacs through such tight spaces didn’t seem very viable from a story-telling perspective. So, I killed that idea. (After all, I’m claustrophobic and climbing around in caves is not my idea of a good time.)

Out of frustration, I went to my favorite internet search engine and I searched on the phrase, “deepest place on earth.” Every search engine return was about some deep underwater trench. Wet demoniacs didn’t seem viable, either. I tried again.

This time, I entered the phrase, “lowest place on earth.” I was surprised at the returns I received. It seems the lowest place on earth, below sea level, is the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is the location of the former Sodom and Gomorrah. It is a place of destruction. Standing there, on its shores, is like standing at ground zero in Hiroshima, or at the World Trade Center.

Needless to say, The locusts from Revelation 9 aren’t locusts as we know or understand. They have a King! “And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.”

Apollyon appears only this one time in scripture, and it is a proper name. This King of the locusts is named, Apollyon. But, the meaning of that name is closest to the Hebrew word Hebrew word found in Job 31:12, “'abaddown” which translates, “place of destruction, destruction, ruin, and abyss.” His very name means “place of destruction.”

The place where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood is most definitely a “place of destruction.” This is another apparent connection between Sodom and Gomorrah and Revelation 9.

In Jude 6 we read that the angels are “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” The word “unto” is from the Greek word “eis” which can be translated “for” or “towards.” The implication is that there is a purpose in the reservation of these fallen angels. They are being held for some future event – in chains which must be unlocked at some point.

I believe the future event is the torment of mankind for 5 months during the Great Tribulation.

I believe that the angels reserved in chains (Jude 6) were in Sodom and Gomorrah when God destroyed it. I think that they were in the great cities of that day, continuing to do all they could to corrupt mankind and somehow thwart the plan of God.

I believe those same fallen angels have been imprisoned in that very spot, under the Dead Sea, awaiting the moment when an angel from heaven will descend into that “abyss” – that place of destruction - with a key to release them onto mankind during the Great Tribulation.

In short, I believe that Jude’s angels in chains are the locusts of Revelation 9. And those angels have been imprisoned in chains and darkness for 4000 years awaiting their release upon humanity. Imagine their hostility and their rage!

Now, I was able to write the scene in the screenplay. What is the premise I wrote surrounding these locusts? You’ll have to see the movie.

But wait!

Some will argue that none of this is possible because angels are not corporal beings. Yet there is no biblical evidence to support that idea. Are angels spiritual beings? Yes. Are they bound to that dimensional realm? Apparently, they are not. Can they take on a corporal form when they cross into our dimensional realm? Apparently, yes. There is enough scriptural evidence of human and angel interaction to suggest that angels can take on a physical human form.

There are a lot of bible scholars who reject this. They seem to be ashamed of spiritual or supernatural things. Their intellect stands in the way of accepting what the scripture clearly seems to state. To them, for the sake of reason, there must be a rational, temporal explanation for things and anything with the slightest hint of the “strange” or “unusual” is shunned.

What I find strange about this attitude is that we're talking about a religion in which we believe that one man paid for the sin of the entire world by hanging on a Roman cross and that that man rose from the dead amidst angels 3 days later - causing the dead to rise and walk the streets of Jerusalem - and then 40 days later ascended without mechanical aid into the heavens and there, He sits at the right hand of God as our advocate against the accusations of a fallen angel. How much more bizarre can you get?

Many scholars try to explain that Genesis 6: 1-2 is referring to a “Godly line” of Seth that intermingles with pagan women of the line of Cain, etc. How that possibly explains the gigantism described in verse 4 is a mystery to me. Not only that, but there is no indication that there was ever any Godly line and how Godly could they be if they married ungodly women? No, the corruption spoken of in Genesis 12 was far greater than sinfulness. They had corrupted all flesh. There was more going on here than mere disobedience.

The reality is, there are some very strange things going on in the Bible, and Paul states clearly, that our battle is not with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual realm. There is real power and activity behind the scenes that must be recognized and appreciated. Our God is greater than all of that, and He resides in us by His Spirit, so we need not fear that realm, but we must also acknowledge that it exists and that it interacts in a very real way with our temporal dimension.

I will not give spiritual minions more prominence than they deserve, but I will not turn a blind eye to it either.

Two Witnesses (Part 3)

2005-02-09T10:01:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

I offer one more thought.

If Moses and Elijah are the two witnesses, and they have been witness to the transfiguration, the resurrection, the ascension, and the demonstrated wrath of God, then what about being eyewitnesses to the mercy and faithfulness of God. If they are witnessing to Israel just before they are to go into the wilderness to lean on God and trust Him for everything, then isn’t it important that they know and have faith in the mercy and faithfulness of God? Shouldn’t they know that God keeps His promises and is able to deliver them?

I am always intrigued by the appearance of God as a man in the Old Testament. What an amazing and gracious God we have that He would descend from Heaven to fellowship with us. Abraham was so blessed to have known and seen God.

So was Joshua.

One of the other interesting appearances of God as Man - the theophany – is the night before the attack on Jericho. Joshua is alone when he confronts a soldier and, at first, he challenges the man, not knowing whether he be friend or foe. The soldier, who is the Lord, tells Joshua to take of his shoes for the place on which he stood was holy ground.

How often had Joshua heard Moses tell the story of his first encounter with God? As Moses stood before that burning bush, the Lord spoke, saying, “put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou stand [is] holy ground” (Ex. 3:5) Joshua is instantly aware of whom it is he faces and his response is one of immediate worship.

My attention is always drawn to similarities in the biblical record. It is there that I look for some correlation that might bind the story together. It is interesting that so close to this appearance of the Lord in human form, just as it was so in Genesis 18, there is also the appearance of two men.

In Joshua, these two men are spies sent by Joshua to survey the land and, in particular, Jericho. When in Jericho, these two men are taken in by Rahab, the harlot. She hides them in the reeds of her roof and later lowers them down the outside wall with a scarlet cord. They report back to Joshua, but offer no information of strategic value. In fact, Joshua is given his “battle plan” by the Lord and the report of the spies is irrelevant. They seem to have had only one purpose: to arrange for the safety of Rahab.

Once the walls of Jericho fall, these two men are sent in by Joshua to rescue Rahab and her family. The rescue of Rahab shows God’s mercy towards a common harlot and God’s faithfulness to keep His promise.

What if these two men…?

Yes, they could have been anyone. Besides, what could possibly be the connection between these two men and the two who appeared in Sodom?

The obvious connection is that they were both sent on rescue missions. But is there more?

In the opening verses of Matthew’s gospel, we are told the lineage of Jesus Christ. In that lineage is Rachab, or as we know her in Joshua, Rahab, the harlot. Is it possible that these two spies are sent in to protect and preserve the lineage of Jesus Christ by saving Rahab from Jericho’s fate?

Rahab was a Moabite. Over and over again in Numbers, the plains of Moab are described as being by Jericho. Jericho was a Moabite city.

Remember the two men who rescued Lot. God could easily have destroyed Sodom without coming to earth in human form. But, to demonstrate that God is just, Lot, whom God saw as righteous, needed to be rescued. The bartering between God and Abraham over the number of righteous required to invoke God’s mercy on the city is further evidence of God’s justice.

After their escape from Sodom, Lot and his daughters found refuge in a cave. Lot’s daughters conspired to have children by getting Lot drunk and then going in and sleeping with him. Ultimately, the two girls were impregnated.

“And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same [is] the father of the Moabites unto this day.” (Gen 19:37)

Lot is Rahab’s ancestor, and in turn, one of Jesus’ ancestors. Again, the lineage of Jesus was protected when Lot was rescued.

Is it possible that God sent his two witnesses, Elijah and Moses, on these rescue missions throughout history to preempt disaster by saving Jesus’ ancestors from certain destruction and, at the same time, create witnesses to major events that point to the character and qualifications of Jesus to assume the throne?

Is it possible?

Imagine the testimony those two witnesses might have.

Two Witnesses (Part 2)

2005-02-09T10:00:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

But authority must be backed by power or it is impotent.

Peter writes in 2 Peter, chapter 3, that the scoffers of this world have willfully put out of their minds the judgment that God brought on the world long ago: the flood. Nineveh, no doubt, knew of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When Jonah cried, “40 days and then destruction,” Nineveh’s king knew what to expect and he repented. Today, many have no regard for God. They neither believe in Him nor accredit anything to His glory. The thought of the return of Jesus Christ and the coming judgment is foolishness to many.

So perhaps, part of Moses and Elijah’s testimony is about the power of God and His judgment. Maybe, part of their testimony is as to the ability of Jesus to punish the wicked and destroy those who oppose Him. Jesus spoke of cosmic world-ending events and the Revelation prophesies coming judgments of fire and hail. What might Moses and Elijah have seen that would give them credibility as witnesses when it comes to God’s judgment?

Let’s take a moment to think about the eternal nature of God. It’s easier for us mere mortals to imagine time as a unidirectional dimension, or as a half dimension; in other words, we can go forward in time, but not backward. God, however, inhabits eternity and is not constrained by our dimensions – including time. He exists outside time. Therefore, where He exists, there is no passing of time as we imagine. Therefore, being unconstrained by time, it is possible for God to know the end from the beginning as He exists at both places on the time line at once. The great “I AM,” is eternally “present.” There is no beginning or end for He encompasses all of time. Imagine then, if it were His will, that God could open a door anywhere in the time line and interject Himself into it. If such a thing is true, then couldn’t the Lord interject Himself and any one inhabiting eternity with Him into any place along the timeline?

So back to the original question: What might Moses and Elijah have seen that would give them credibility as witnesses when it comes to God’s judgment?

Genesis 18:2 speaks of Abraham saying, “And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground…”

“And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.” (Genesis 18:16)

“And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.” (Genesis 18:22)

“And there came two angels to Sodom at even;” (Genesis 19:1)

“And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” (Gen. 19:12-13)

“And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.” (Gen 19:15-16)

“Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Perhaps, by some supernatural miracle beyond our comprehension, these 2 men are Moses and Elijah, now witnesses to the destructive power of God’s judgment? These two men are also eyewitness to the Justice of God. Lot, who was considered righteous because he was grieved by the decay all about him, was saved by God. God proved he would not destroy the righteous with the wicked.

Again, I would never teach this as doctrine, but is it a possibility? Of course it is. Is it important? That’s up to you. To me, it further magnifies my God and is further proof of the divine nature of God’s Word. I can’t and won’t believe that the details are insignificant. Why 2 men and not 1, 3, or 4? I believe God has given us all the information we need to put the puzzle together, we just need to find the pieces and recognize how they fit.

If one begins with Moses and Elijah dressed in white atop the mountain with the Lord, then how far a stretch is it to assume the two men in white at the ascension are also Moses and Elijah? And then, how far a reach is it to think that the two men at the tomb are also they? Soon, these things seem to be oh-so-connected.

End Part 2

Two Witnesses (Part 1)

2005-02-09T09:57:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

"...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Deut. 19:15

The Revelation is a perplexing book. Many theologians and scholars have taken stabs at the meaning of the book. In the end, most who strive to understand it will find themselves adhering to one of, or a variation of, the 4 major interpretations: the Pretorist view, the Historist view, the Futurist view, or the Allegorist view. This usually is the result of the individual seeking help in interpreting the meaning from a mainstream commentary. Whatever the view held by the author often becomes the view held by the reader.

Without opening Pandora’s Box - a debate over which mainstream interpretation may or may not be "correct" - let me say this: they all have their flaws and none of them are likely to be totally correct. In the end, no one can understand prophecy in it's entirety until it has been fulfilled. Even then, there are passages in the New Testament that we are explicitly told are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, yet few could ever have pieced the prophecy and fulfillment together on their own.

In the end, regardless of your "position" it should be a flexible one and no one should be dogmatic to death on the matter. One day we shall all understand clearly, but for now we need to be willing to accept our interpretation may ultimately prove to be incorrect.

I currently adhere to a variation of the Futurist view. However, unlike most "futurists" or dispensationalists, I do not believe that The Revelation is written in chronological order, and I think there is a lot of overlapping and cascading going on in the seals, trumpets, and bowls. Although I do believe that most of The Revelation is prophesy that is yet-to-be-fulfilled, I am not as interested in the chronology of the events as much as I am the meaning of events and symbols.

It is almost impossible to begin to understand the symbols in The Revelation without a solid understanding and knowledge of the Old Testament. There are some 800 references to the Old Testament in The Revelation alone. It is also important to understand the prevalent culture at the time and place of The Revelation's writing.

One popular point of contention among many scholars, regarding symbols and events, is the identity of the Two Witnesses that appear in Rev. 11:3-13. For many, these are allegorical characters, but to most futurists, these witnesses are real people. For the purpose of this writing, we will assume the two witnesses are real people.

Most futurists identify the first of the two witnesses as Elijah based on the supernatural powers that are described in Rev. 11: 5- 6 and because the scripture says that Elijah will return before the Messiah returns. (Mal. 4:5)

Again, based on the powers that are described in Rev. 11: 5- 6, many argue that the second witness is Moses. It is important to note, regardless of the similarity in abilities, God can grant these abilities to anyone, and it need not be Moses and Elijah just because they, too, at one time, had similar abilities.

Others argue that the two witnesses are Elijah and Enoch because these are the only two men in history who did not die natural deaths before being translated to Heaven. They argue that because Hebrews states that it is given to a man to die once and then be judged (Heb. 9:27), Moses cannot come back lest the scripture would contradict itself.

Well, I believe that the verse in Hebrews is speaking generally. The way things generally work, is that most men die once and then are judged. However, there are exceptions to this. The widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:11-15), Jairus’ daughter (Mar. 5:22-45), Lazarus, Tabitha, and others are all exceptions to this, meaning that it is not a hard a fast rule, but a principle. The point is, we are not reincarnated, but are given one life to live. For some that life is momentarily interrupted by death, but they can be miraculously resuscitated by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, in principle, Moses remains a viable candidate. Let us also not forget the struggle over the possession of Moses' body by the archangel Michael and Satan (Jude 1:9). Could it be that Michael was charged with retrieving Moses' body for a future purpose?

Other than the fact that Enoch didn’t die a natural death, there is no evidence anywhere in the scripture that supports Enoch as the second witness. However, there is substantial evidence that points to Moses as the second witness. In fact, I hope to show that the scripture clearly identifies Elijah and Moses as the two witnesses.

For a moment, let's focus on the purpose of a witness. When Christians speak of witnessing or being a witness, what we really mean is proclaiming or sharing a personal experience with others. Generally we equate witnessing with proselytizing.

But the job of a witness is to testify.

In its original context, and still today in our justice system, to be a witness meant to come before a court and testify as to events witnessed that might indict or absolve an individual of having broken the law.

So, whereas Deuteronomy demands that the guilt of an individual be attested to by two or more witnesses, two or more witnesses might also establish the innocence or testify that an individual had kept the law.

In the case of Jesus, two false witnesses had come forward and made false accusations before the Sanhedrin. (Matt 26:60-62) These men were of ill-report but the Sanhedrin overlooked their credibility to accomplish their goals: the death of Jesus and the security of their place as the ultimate religious authority in the land.

So, what is the identity and the role of the two witnesses described in the eleventh chapter of The Revelation? They are not just there to proclaim or to proselytize, but to testify. Testify to what? Who are they and what have they seen that they might possibly be testifying to? And to whom are they testifying?

Jesus opens the scroll in Rev. 6, breaking the seals on the deed, claiming ownership of the Earth. The ensuing trumpets announce the coming king, and these two witnesses are there to testify to His legitimacy, credibility, worth, and right to lay claim to the earth. Contrary to the middle-of-the night railroading that Jesus underwent at His death, here are two credible witnesses proclaiming His innocence, purity, and perfection in the light of day.

The scripture tells us that the two witnesses are in Jerusalem. So, they are testifying according to Jewish law to Israel. Jesus is described in John 1:45 as the one whom the Law of Moses and the Prophets did write. And who would make more credible witnesses to Israel than those who epitomize the law and the prophets: Moses and Elijah?

Everyone points to the description of the witnesses’ powers in Rev. 11:5-6 as the key to their identity. Yes, Elijah called consuming fire from Heaven and caused a three-and-a-half year drought. Yes, Moses turned the Nile to blood and was there when God sent nine other plagues on Egypt. The parallels are undeniable. However, while for most this is evidence enough of their identity there is even stronger evidence as to the identity of these witnesses – the Word of God.

Rev 11:4 reads: “These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.” This is a direct reference to a passage in Zechariah. In Zechariah, chapter 4, Joshua, the priest, asks an angel the meaning of the two olive trees and an angel responds, saying, “These [are] the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” Zech .4:14.

Moses and Elijah were most definitely anointed to do the work of God. But the scripture goes on, “standing by the Lord of the whole earth.” What relevance does this have?

“And after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him. (Mat 17:1-3)

So, here we have a clear picture of two anointed ones standing “by” the Lord of the whole earth, an obvious fulfillment of the prophecy in Zechariah. Combine this picture with the described supernatural powers described in Rev, 11:5-6 and it would seem hard to dispute that the two witnesses are Moses and Elijah. Zechariah 4:14 points to that event on the mountain top with Jesus. Surely, then, the two olive trees in Revelation must also be Moses and Elijah.

I want to note a subtle difference between the two verses describing the olive trees. The verse in Zechariah speaks of the olive trees as the anointed ones who stand “by” the Lord of the whole earth. Moses and Elijah stood by Jesus when He was transfigured. But look at the verse in Revelation. The olive trees are now “before” the God of the Earth. Jesus has ascended and sits at the right hand of the Father. They now stand “before” Him, not by Him. For me, this makes the appearance of the two witnesses a future event.

(Notice that Revelation 1:4 is a reference to Jesus as God- yet another place we can point to that identifies Jesus as God if we tie this into the transfiguration.)

The next question remains: what are these two witnesses testifying to? Undoubtedly, they are testifying to the character and qualifications of Jesus Christ to assume the throne. But one cannot testify to that which is hearsay, rather they must be eyewitness to the events that point to Christ’s true identity. How is this possible?

Well, for one, we know that Moses and Elijah were eyewitnesses to Christ’s transfiguration. They saw Jesus glorified by God and heard the Lord’s voice when He spoke of Jesus, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.” So, Moses and Elijah can testify to the fact that God miraculously identified Jesus as His Son, the Messiah.

But what other things might they testify to in order to establish the character and qualifications of the Christ – to affirm Jesus’ legal right to ascend to the throne as Lord of the whole earth?

The Resurrection. Paul tells us that without the resurrection, Christianity is meaningless. “And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.” 1Cor. 15:14. So, bearing witness to the resurrection would be vital in affirming Jesus as the Messiah.

Luke tells us, “And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:” Luke 24:2-4 While the other Gospels speak of angels or men inside and out of the tomb, Luke is clear that two men in shining garments were present.

Perhaps these 2 men are Moses and Elijah, now witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus?

For those who might argue that these were angels, the word that Luke uses is “aner” which means man. The Hebrew and Greek words for angel are more generic terms that can refer not only to the angelic realm, but also to human messengers and ambassadors. These words are translated to mean one or the other based on context. When the scripture says “angel” it may refer to men or angels, but when the scripture says “men,” it cannot refer those of the angelic realm. In this instance, when Luke says these are men, they are just that: men.

The Ascension. Jesus prophesied many times that He was from the Father and would ascend back to the Father (John 3:13, others), and only the Messiah would be able to do so. The ascension was an important fulfillment of prophesy that aided in identifying Jesus as the Messiah.

Again, Luke writes, “And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;” Acts 1:9-10. Again, perhaps these 2 men are Moses and Elijah, now witnesses to the ascension of Jesus?

If this be so, Moses and Elijah would be able to testify in Jerusalem that Jesus had been identified by God as His Son (transfiguration), that He had overcome sin and death (resurrection), and that He has ascended back to the Father from which He had come (ascension).

End Part 1

Noah's Lonely Calling

2005-02-03T09:40:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines "typology" as:

1. The study or systematic classification of types that have characteristics or traits in common.

2. A theory or doctrine of types, as in scriptural studies.

It is widely held by biblical scholars that the scripture contains literary "types."

One of the definitions in that same dictionary for "type" is: "a figure, representation, or symbol of something to come, such as an event in the Old Testament that foreshadows another in the New Testament."

Noah is often regarded as a "type" of the Christ. This is not to say that Noah was the same as Christ, but that Noah foreshadowed the coming One in character and circumstance.

I believe typology, literary foreshadowing, is further evidence of the Bible's divine nature. There is no way that Moses could have known or predicted the person of Jesus accurately enough to have written such striking similarities in the character of Noah. And even if one were to argue the authorship of Genesis, there is no doubt that the text existed 275 years before Christ in the form of the Septuagint.

There are several ways in which Noah is generally regarded as a type of Christ.

Noah’s name means "comfort". Jesus Christ came to be or comforter.

Noah built the ark of wood through which his family was saved from God's wrath and ultimately the ark “came to rest.” Jesus' death on the wooden cross saved the family of God from the coming wrath of God and He delivers them into His rest.

Noah was a righteous man, "upright in his generations." Some believe this means Noah's genealogical line was undefiled by the Nephilim. Whether this is true, or not, Noah followed and trusted God, regardless of a defiant and unrepentant world he lived in. Jesus was undefiled, having lived a perfect and sinless life. And, like Noah, Jesus was a righteous man in the midst of a Godless world.

Noah walked with God and was obedient even as others most likely laughed and scorned him as he built the ark. Jesus was laughed at and mocked, too, but that didn't keep Him from being obedient – even unto death.

I'm sure there are other ways, too, in which Noah can be considered a type of Christ. Noah planted a vineyard. Jesus is the vine. It can be inferred that Noah was a prophet-preacher and a voice of righteousness in his day. Jesus was a prophet-teacher and most definitely a voice of righteousness in His day.

There is another way I believe that Noah is a type of the Christ that requires a little digging and a little help from our counselor to find.

As I have written before, I believe that every number, every word, occurs in the scripture for a purpose. There are many theologians and scholars who agree that numbers in the scripture often have a meaning.

For example: the number 1 is often representative of God, the beginning, or unity. 3 can represent the Godhead (trinity), divine completeness, or perfection. 6 is the number of man (666 is the number of man elevated to the place of God). 7 can symbolize perfection, completeness, the day of rest (used 600 times in Bible). And the number 8 often speaks to a new beginning, or resurrection.

Jesus lived for 33 years. .33 is one third. The scripture is full of the number 3 and things that are divided into thirds. Three appears in nature over and over again. We are created in three parts: body, mind (soul), and spirit.

Is it a coincidence, or was Jesus’ death at that age intentional to point to His being one third of the Godhead? Being of the third heaven? Rising from the dead on the third day? Coming into the last third of human history?

Jesus laid down his own life. He could have done so at any age. Jesus spoke often of “His time.” Was there intent beyond our understanding in the time which He laid down His life?

Let’s get back to Noah for a moment.

There is a lot of information about Noah’s age and the time of the coming flood, etc. that must be there for a reason. If this were just a historical account written by men, one might understand the occasional interjection to point out someone’s age. But, if we believe that this is a manuscript authored by God Himself, then we need ask, why are the years recorded there?

The scripture tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came. (Gen. 7:6)

When God told Noah to build the ark, the scripture tells us that there would be 120 years until the flood. (Gen. 6:3) (Many argue that this is the Lord declaring the age to which man would live. However, this makes no sense in context of the passage. God is talking about man’s wickedness and the coming destruction. In context, it makes more sense that God is telling Noah that he has 120 years to accomplish the task that God is giving him. See Psalm 90:10, also.)

Simple arithmetic reveals, then, that Noah was 480 when he first learned of the coming flood. (600 – 120 = 480)

In the midst of all this narrative, we are reminded that Noah had sons. In the fifth chapter of Genesis, we are given one of those long genealogies that many just skip over. But at the very end of this particular genealogy, we are told that Noah was 500 when his sons were born (Gen 5:32) – a fact we might miss if we read the story of Noah out of context, apart from the surrounding text.

In the Jewish culture, there is a thing called Bar Mitzvah, which means “son of the commandment.” The Bar Mitzvah celebration is rather new, but the concept of a boy becoming a man at the age of 13 is an ancient one. It is suggested that it far precedes Abraham and the birth if the Jewish nation.

If such a custom were in place in Noah’s culture, then his first-born son, Shem, would not have been of an age to help Noah with the Ark until he was 13.

If Noah was 480 when he first learned of the flood, and began work right away on the Ark, then he would have worked for 33 years before his son Shem was of age to assist him. (500 + 13 = 513 – 480 = 33)

I know the scripture doesn’t come right out and say it, and therefore, I can’t be dogmatic about it, but…

Is it possible that just as Jesus worked alone and completed his work on the cross in 33 years, that Noah worked alone and completed his work on the Ark in 33 years?

Could Noah’s Ark have been completed and stood as a testimony of the coming judgment for 87 years? Is this another hidden yet discernable way in which Noah is a type of the Christ?

Afterthought.

My brother recently suggested that when Jesus spoke of “this generation,” that He might have meant 80 years, and not 40 as many have previously suggested. My brother draws this from Psalm 90:10 where David defines a full life as 80 years.

In reference to the end times, if Jesus was talking about a future generation that was 80 years, plus seven years of tribulation…87 years.

Coincidence?

Some references:

Authur W. Pink, "Gleanings in Genesis," Chapter 12, Kessinger Publishing

Patrick Fairbairn, "The Typology of Scripture," Kregel Publications

An Introduction

2005-02-01T12:40:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

In my personal study of God's word, I have discovered things that, to me, are evidence of divine authorship. I do not believe there to be any one man or group of men who could coordinate with one another over time and space to author such a perfect document. No human mind is clever or intelligent enough to architect such information.

When I first really submitted myself to God's call on my life, I decided to read The Revelation. I had always been intrigued by end-times prophecy and I wanted to dig in and finally see for myself what it was all about. I used a popular commentary to help guide me through it, and when I was finished, I decided to start at the beginning and read the whole Bible.

Naturally, I started in Genesis.

As I read, I began to notice ideas that culminated in The Revelation had their genesis in, well, Genesis. The Bible, I was soon to discover, was a beautifully detailed tapestry with "threads" or concepts that ran its breadth and width. Tiny details I read yesterday would later reveal themselves as puzzle pieces crucial to the completion of the whole picture. Numbers that once seemed unimportant or irrelevant, names in genealogies that were unpronounceable, or tiny, seemingly-frivolous details would jog a memory of another passage and suddenly, it all clicked. Now, when I stood back and looked at the whole, there came into focus a bigger picture that had previously been obscured.

There is a passage in Proverbs that reads, "[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings [is] to search out a matter." Pro 25:2. There is a popular Bible teacher who uses this verse as a proof-text for what I am describing: God has concealed certain ideas in His word that He makes known to those who will diligently seek them out. Sometimes, there are things in the scriptures that only become visible when we have been faithful to explore and desire to know them, and then, and only then will the Holy Spirit illuminate them for us.

I'm not talking "code" here. I'm not talking about using a computer to decipher some hidden meaning in the original Greek or Hebrew texts. I'm talking about details in the manuscript that occur in the natural reading of the text. Little descriptions, or a number, or a detail of an event that contribute to seeing the big picture: ideas that come into focus when all the details of the narrative are known and realized.

Imagine having the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle laid out before you and, after staring at them for hours, you suddenly see how they fit together. The light bulb goes on and everything clicks into place. The pieces were always there, and some of them you knew intimately. You just didn't realize previously how they were related to one another.

Often, the understanding comes as a powerful experience. It's as though the Holy Spirit has just poured an understanding into me that I previously did not have. With it comes joy and the immediate worship of God and His wisdom.

What I have come to discover in addition to the divine nature of the Bible, is that every detail, number, name, etc. is there for a purpose. Our God is perfect. This means He is perfectly efficient and has not wasted a single jot or tiddle in the text. Every word - even every name in those seemingly-endless generations - is there as a critical piece of the integrated whole.

Maybe you're familiar with those logic puzzles in the crossword puzzle books? They are usually a grid with certain facts across the top and certain facts along the left-hand side. You are given clues, like "Bobby is not the one with the blue coat." With every clue you make a mark on the grid, hoping that, at some point, you get enough information to figure out what color Bobby's coat is.

What some people call contradictions, I call clues. The whole picture comes from knowing what is and what isn't. For instance, if A is true and B is true, then we can infer that C is true. Or, if A is true and C is true, then we know B isn't true. By simple deductive reasoning, we can get a clearer picture of the entire picture painted by scripture.

I've also learned, that there are a lot of ideas held dear in the church that are simply not Biblical, and a lot of ideas that knit the Bible together as an integrated whole that the church has just plain missed.

Some of these ideas, revelations, insights, teachings - whatever you want to call them - I've shared with a Bible study group that I taught for 8 years and to small public groups to whom I've had the privilege to speak. As a result, many have asked me to write them down so they can read them over and, in turn, share them with others.

Maybe someone besides me has discovered these same things. I'm not claiming any kind of uniquely divine insight, but I've never heard or read about them and they certainly aren't mainstream ideas in the church. Some of the ideas may have been touched on by others before me, but I don't know to what extent they've ever flushed them out. Like I've said, they're new to me.

I've never taught these ideas as "gospel," but rather possibilities to be mulled over and considered. In some cases, I can't point to any one definitive passage in the scripture that proves or disproves the idea, so I can't and won't be dogmatic about it, unless it is definitive. I can say, that in most cases, it's not a stretch to piece the scriptures together and make the inference that these concepts are there. I will say that there are some widely accepted ideas in the church that have less biblical foundation than the ideas I'm sharing here.

Ultimately, I would ask that you remain teachable and have an open mind. Be willing to accept there maybe more to a passage than you've realized before and, ultimately, that you should allow the Holy Spirit to speak to your heart about the legitimacy of the teachings I will share.

Stay tuned. It's about to get interesting.

Wake Up Call

2005-01-14T16:16:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

I’ve really struggled with this one. For days, now, I have debated and edited and wrestled over how to say what’s on my heart and how to say it without sounding “angry” or “bitter.” My good and Godly friend Bob reminds me to “accentuate the positive.”

I reluctantly want to share what recently happened to my wife and children. Not to be critical of any one church or believer, but to highlight a behavior that is prevalent in the Church.

For the last three years, my beautiful wife and two incredible children have attended a weekly event for mothers and their pre-school children. The mothers would fellowship and share - sometimes focusing their time on a biblical study - and the children would play together. It was an event that my wife and children looked forward to every week: their “play group.”

Due to a numerous set of circumstances, we stopped attending the church fellowship that sponsored the event and began attending a local home fellowship. At the time, the women involved in this “play group” made it clear that my wife and our children were still welcome to attend. My children are best friends with these other children and my wife had developed lasting friendships with several of the women.

Several days ago, my wife was asked to meet with the wife of this fellowship’s Pastor. My wife’s “best friend” was in the meeting as well.

These two women told my wife that she was no longer welcome to participate in the weekly play group since she no longer attended their fellowship. They told her that the friendships could continue but that she could not fellowship with them as long as she worshiped and fellowshipped elsewhere. They, in essence, told my wife and children that they could no longer be a part of the most important recurring social event of their lives because we no longer attended their church.

I have to believe that the Holy Spirit is grieved.

It is obvious that many in the church do not understand who we are in Christ. They do not understand the nature of the relationships that we have with one another in Christ. They do not know the power that is available to them in the Holy Spirit. They do not know how crippled they have become.

I wrote previously about covenant relationships and the bond that is between brothers and sisters in Christ which exceeds that of even earthly blood or genetic relationships. And this is how Christ intends it: that we love one another and are one just as Jesus and God the Father are one.

We are no longer carnal creatures but Spiritual beings bound together forever in Christ..

Friendship, but not fellowship? We who walk in the Spirit of the Lord cannot help but have Koinania- fellowship- with one another. We are of the same body. We are of the same structure, designed to be a dwelling place for the Lord.

Can you imagine embracing every true believer you meet with great love in your heart and joy over the grace and forgiveness of God, looking to serve that person, to give to them, to encourage them, and to lift them up in the light and love of the Lord? Can you imagine a totally non-judgmental, absolutely-loving, all-forgiving, completely open, self-sacrificing, subservient relationship with other believers?

Can you imagine relationships that exists in light and truth because each of us is in total submission to the word and the work of the Holy Spirit, in agreement and harmony, remaining teachable and embracing one another as we use our spiritual gifts to edify one another?

This covenant relationship in the Church was evident as we read the first few chapters of Acts. The believers gave to one another as they had need and there was equity among them. No one sought to exalt himself above another, but rather, sought to serve and be used of God in the body of Christ. They went home to home sharing meals together. There were no denominations or walls to divide them.

Paul made it clear that we are one body, each with a different and necessary role. Peter describes us a living stones being out together to become the dwelling place of God. Imagine the Lord in our midst, dwelling among his children assembled together as His temple.

So, in contrast to how we should be, how are we today?

The enemy is so deceitful and we are so easily deceived.

Many of us are puffed up with knowledge. We are unteachable and unapproachable if an idea contradicts what we firmly believe. We are dogmatic to the death, even if we are dead wrong. We lean on our human understanding of God's word and allow little or no room in our lives for the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Not that many of us could even hear that voice or recognize it. Our lives are so cluttered with electronic noise, the pursuit of wealth and status, and the service of self that we measure our relationship with the Lord, not by quality or quantity of time spent in fellowship with Him, but by how little we sin and how well-disciplined we are. (None of which are reliable indicators of how spiritual we are, but how able we are to deny the flesh.)

Of course, such a worldly standard by which we can judge ourselves makes it all the easier to measure ourselves against others, too. We can look down our long noses at those who aren't as disciplined as we are, as wealthy, or who aren't as high on the social ladder, who don't dress as well, drive as nice a car, live in as big a house, have as credible a degree, or are as respected in our communities.

We divide the moment we meet by judging one another's character on the basis of our denomination. “What church do you go to?” we ask. The very question is ludicrous. What we really mean, is, “Of what sect are you?” And that question need only be asked because so many rebels have gone before with their immovable doctrine and decided to divide the church once again.

Instead of us being the wholly united, loving, power-filled body of Christ, we have become splintered, back-biting, judgmental cliques that are more focused on how we might further divide than with how we might love and serve one another and, in so doing, maybe reach the lost world for Christ's sake.

“The love of many shall wax cold.” [Jesus] (Matt. 24:12)

I want to remain positive. But I think we are in need of a wake-up call.

Family Ties

2005-01-13T15:48:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

Blood is thicker than water.

Our western culture believes that family - the bond between a brother or sister, father or mother - is more important than any other relationship, and that, when push comes to shove, we always side with family, regardless of circumstances.

Blood is thicker than water.

I've even been witness to situations where a wife or husband would abandon their spouse and return to their parents or siblings when an event or circumstances has caused a rift. Blood relations are more important than even the marital covenant.

Blood is thicker than water.

Churches have been split when natural familial ties have been considered stronger than the bonds of Christ's love or His sacrfice. Wives have encouraged husbands to stand pridefully strong when the need of the moment is humility and, as a result, brothers in Christ have gone separate ways. We are united in water baptism, but family is blood.

Blood is thicker than water.

We westerners have little or no concept of what "covenant" means. Middle-eastern cultures have lived by covenant law for millenia. Making a covenant with another person is no little thing. Often, there is a process or ritual by which covenant is entered into. It usually involves some kind of sacrifice or blood spilling to emphasize the import of the agreement. At one time, the consequence for breaking covenant was death.

The two people entering into covenant would cut themselves, usually their hand or forearm, and then they would shake hands or cross forearms to allow their blood to mingle.(We, here in the west, have a similar thing kids often do to become "blood brothers.")

The two, bound by the blood covenant, have a responsibility to one another that is greater than that of any other relationship. If the one is hungry and the other has food, the one who has shares with the one who has not. If the one has a horse and the other does not, the one with the horse offers it to the other. No other relationship takes priority over that of the covenant partner.

So, if blood represents the covenant relationship, then what does water mean? Having only part of the picture - taking a phrase out of it's original context - always leads to misunderstanding.

The Blood of the Covenant is Thicker than the Water of the Womb.

We who have entered into covenant with Jesus Christ have a stronger bond with him than with any human, regardless of their genetic bond. Having been washed in the blood, having drank His blood - the blood of the new covenant - we have entered into the most powerful relationship we ever could and our responsibility to Him is greater than any other.

And our brothers and sisters in Christ are bound to us by the very same blood. The blood covenant relationship with Christ extends to His body: the church. The relationship we have with fellow believers is stronger and of higher importance than that of even "blood" relatives.
Blood is thicker than water.

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" [Jesus] asked.

Then He looked at those seated in a circle around Him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother." - Mark 3:34-35

P.S. I rejoice that members of my family are also covenant blood brothers. It is awesome to know that the closest bonds on earth have been made closer by the blood of Christ and that those relationships will continue into eternity.

Remembering Noah

2005-01-11T13:08:00.000-08:00

This post is from my previous blog, Ear to the Heavens. Enjoy.

In light of recent tsunami, flash flooding, and torrential rains, I am reminded of Noah. The floods and storms we have suffered of late are nothing on par with that which Noah experienced. Noah was to witness a global deluge with which God would destroy all life. But Noah was also faced with a deluge of social and moral decay that Satan sought to use to destroy mankind.

We, like Noah, are faced with a torrent of assaults against biblical morality and godliness that threatens to destroy us and the world. At every turn, another socialist group, activist, or politician is demanding that we abandon conservatism and embrace hedonistic behavior that grates against the very fiber of our spiritual conscience.

Some of us, so grieved by our culture, have adopted an escapist attitude and are awaiting the rapture- not only to deliver us from the coming judgment, but also from the decaying culture around us. In that respect, the work done on our behalf on Calvary and the cross has become our ark - our ticket to ride when the rapture comes.

But it is important to recognize that, apart from the coming wrath, a catastrophic and world-destroying flood has already come. All about us, the world is drowning in darkness and the cross is our - and their - only hope: God's provisional ark to keep us afloat in the surrounding sea of decadence and ungodliness.

In the midst of the decadence that swirled about him, Noah clung to the ark of God's sanctification. But instead of cowering inside the ark awaiting mankind’s final destruction, Noah was a light and a voice of prophecy crying out against the great sin and debauchery of his time.

Peter tells us that God was faithful to rescue Noah and his family from the coming judgment. We, too, have that assurance. But, Peter also tells us that the Holy Spirit which raised Christ from the dead also preached in the days of Noah. In Noah’s case, all hope was lost and instead of evangelizing, Noah proclaimed God’s truth, in effect, silencing on the Day of Judgment all those who perished in the flood.

Regardless of the outcome, God’s word will not return void: men will be saved or condemned by His word. How men respond to God’s message is not of concern to the messenger. Yes, we should rejoice when God’s Word is received and repentance is the outcome, and we should grieve when the opposite is true. But the outcome cannot become a barrier to our responsibility of being salt and light.

Nor should we ever allow our perceived depth of the world’s depravity and our desire to escape it cause us to imagine that God’s Word and our proclamation of it will be of no affect.

It is interesting that Peter is also the writer who cautioned us to remember that from which we were saved. Too often, in our Christian comfort zones we develop a sense of self-righteousness and we see ourselves as above or better than those who are perishing around us.

Unlike the time of Noah, when he alone was seen as upright and worth saving, God is still reaching out and calling men to Himself. Every new day is a day of salvation and we are God’s primary tool of reaching those who are perishing with the living water and life-giving Word. As Peter also reminded us, God is not slow in His coming but is patient, wishing that all men might be saved.

While Noah was shut up in the ark and subjected to the horrible screams and laments of those around him who were perishing and damned eternally, we have the privilege to throw the lifeline from the deck to those struggling in the undertow and to rescue them from the present deluge and the coming judgment.

In a time when we are so greatly reminded of the death that surrounds us, let us focus not on the condemnation or wrath of God, but on being light and life bearers and with a sense of urgency that the times demand.