Sometimes, when you read things, they hit you. Here's 1Ti 4:16 (ESV, Greek is UBS4/NA27):

I thought of this during lunch today while reading 2 Clement 10.5 (Ehrman's edition, Greek from Lake's edition):

The interesting item, of course, is the “double reward” of 1Ti 4:16, saving one's self and one's hearers; compared with the posited “double penalty” of 2Cl 10.5, dooming one's self and one's hearers.

Those of us who teach have a responsibility to teach correct doctrine (one of the major focuses of the Pastoral Epistles). It is easy, for me anyhow, to get wrapped up in the material and forget about the primary responsibility. I need to do better at that.

A blog I read rather regularly, ChicagoBoyz, has a post that links to some very cool cycling photos from years gone by. There are 90 photos, some are very cool:

Even if you aren't into cycling (I'm not) the pictures are fun to browse through.

Thanks to the wonders of Furl, I stumbled across Mark Simonson's Notebook.

Cool blog with decent photos as examples of typography in movies, signs, and elsewhere. Also be sure to check out the Articles section of his web site.

It's obvious this guy knows his stuff.

Elmer Bernstein passed away. He wrote several movie scores, including that of The Magnificent Seven, which has one of the best movie main themes ever.

If you're subscribed to Rhapsody, you can listen to the entire soundtrack of The Magnificent Seven. Start with the very first track (link only works for Rhapsody users!) and you'll know the theme when you hear it.

A side note: I'd never stopped to think about it before, but apparently The Magnificent Seven is an adaptation of the Japanese classic, Seven Samurai. And it makes total sense. If you've never seen Seven Samurai, you need to add that to your list of must-see movies too. It blows Tom Cruise's rather paltry samurai effort away ... though you need to read subtitles the whole way (160 minutes of movie!). It's on DVD, so you should be able to find it rather easily.

Duh -- it's so obvious. Google doesn't want to go public. They have to go public due to some esoteric SEC reg that has to do with number of outside investors in a privately held company or something like that. The argument, as I recall, is that once the number of investors gets over a certain threshold (500?) the company is essentially public and the reporting/auditing burden of a public company is required. So Google goes public. I read an article on this months ago; don't have the link handy (sorry). Google is making it difficult for all invovled so that folks who end up with Google shares have motive to simply sit on them.

Google wants control of their own destiny, and public companies don't necessarily have that ability. Their Dutch Auction style IPO (see MarginalRevolution's awesome summary) is another clue; it forces folks to make high offers -- it forces them to be committed.

So I'm guessing Google doesn't care about the press they're getting. They probably don't really care about the money. If they did, they could've gone public and raked it in a few years back. The leadership and founders of the company are going to do all they can to keep control localized and secure.

That's my take, anyway. Don't look for Larry & Segey to cash out any time soon. They're not doing it for the money, and I bet they're having a load of fun.

A friend (you know who you are) sent me this link. Apparently there's a live-action “Fat Albert” movie under production.

I think any attempt to convert any successful funny cartoon (not the super-hero stuff, but comic cartoons) is ill-fated and should not be pursued. I might be wrong here, but my quick mental list of comic cartoons that have been made into live-action movies (Flintsones? Scooby-Doo?) consists of flops.

I'm willing to be proven wrong on my assertion that all such past endeavors have been flops. Drop me a comment if you've got an example of a non-flop comedic-cartoon-as-live-action-movie.

So, after a few posts yesterday on 2 Clement, I realized that I forgot to give some background of the document. So, here goes. Most of this comes from Holmes' edition of the Apostolic Fathers.

While the traditional name is “2 Clement” and traditionally it was understood to be a second epistle (letter) from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. However, the document itself is fairly clearly a homily (sermon) instead of an epistle.

It is dated variously between 100 and 200 AD. Lightfoot puts it between 120-140 AD. The sermon is anonymous and any effort to confirm an author should be viewed as highly speculative.

I'd recommend reading a modern translation; the older translations (Lake, Lightfoot, and others you'll find online) are stilted and infused with KJV-ish language.

I'm on a committee/team/whatever looking into small group stuff for the church I'm attending. I'm supposed to figure out what other churches in the area are doing, but I'm lazy.

So, if you'd like to zap me an email or drop a comment about the basics of what your church does (if anything) in the realm of small groups or Bible studies, I'd appreciate it.

If you have any documentation or web pages you can point me to, that would be quite groovy.

Thanks!