Friday 27 February 2009

Agatha Christie, Appointment with Death



呢本我只係一般喜歡. 個故事講有一班去以色列o既旅客, 當中有個家庭, 個後母係衰人, 專門精神虐待佢 d 仔女, 而多年下來, 佢 d 仔女已經俾佢半催眠, condition 晒, 佢無論講乜, 佢 d 仔女都只有照做, 雖然唔鍾意做但係手腳就不由自主照做咗出嚟. 後來呢個後母被殺, Poirot 就出場去搵兇手.

其實個故事都算OK有趣, 因為個後母真係好變態. 但係花太多時間講背景故事, 去到成本書o既中間先至死人, 太慢咗 d. 而 Poirot 亦出場好少, 頭半本書都冇佢, 同埋喺呢本書入面, 佢都幾乞人憎, 主要係因為死咗嗰個人實在好討厭, 而 Poirot 主要係要去搵兇手, 令讀者覺得感覺怪怪的. 同埋個殺人局都只算一般而已.

評分: 70% 啦.

Wednesday 25 February 2009

TVB 同 CCTV 的分別?

香港 TVB 同大陸 CCTV 直播敏感政治新聞, 有乜分別? 睇下就知:





答案: 冇分別.

Sunday 22 February 2009

[Sunday School] Day 6: topic 3 part 3



In the past weeks, we have seen some archaeological finds that might confirm certain details in the OT. To be fair, we'll now look at stuff that doesn't sit comfortably with what the OT tells us. The most notable case is the problem of Israel's settlement in Canaan? Just how did they end up in Canaan after the Exodus in Egypt? Many scholars date the Exodus to around 1250 BCE, the time of Ramses II. Did Israel invade and conquer cities in Canaan as the OT reports?



The most famous city in this episode of the biblical narrative is Jericho. According to the OT, the city's walls miraculously collapsed and the Israelites made their way into the city and slaughtered everybody.



Do we get the same picture from archaeological research? John Garstang claimed to have discovered the collapsed walls of the Joshua invasion. But Kathleen Kenyon, with a more sophisticated and advanced technique of excavation, found out that Garstang had dated the collapsed to the wrong time. They were in fact from the Early Bronze Age, not from the Late Bronze Age, which is the period to which scholars date Joshua.



Kenyon found out that Jericho was destrued by fire by the end of Middle Bronze Age and remained relatively unoccupied throughout the Late Bronze Age. That means, there was no fortified city for Joshua to conqure in Jericho...



No, I'm not spreading heresies. I tood these two books off the shelves of the church's library. They say the same thing.



To make you feel better, more recently a guy named Bryant Wood argues that Garstang was correct and Kenyon wrong. Though still a decidedly minority, there's someone (a real scholar, archaeologist) who disagrees with Kenyon. His arguments are too technical for me to fully appreciate. I personally have more faith in Kenyon than in Wood, but I'll let you decide for yourself.



Similar problem with the City of Ai.



Excavations show that there are only 2 major periods of occupation. First in the Early Bronze Age, then in the Iron Age.



There's a destruction level by the end of the Early Bronze Age, and the city remained unoccupied throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages! Again, according to archaeologists, there's nothing for Joshua to conqure in Ai.



The site was occupied in the Iron Age, but there are no walls. Strictly speaking, it was more a village than a city.



Scholars have tried to think of a solution to these problems. May be we should move the date of the Exodus to much earlier? But if we do that, we'll move many other things in the biblical timeline and numerous other things won't fit. I think we're actually attacking the bible if we do that.

Albright suggests that the Ai story in the OT was originally a story about Bethel, which was indeed destroyed in the Late Bronze Age. But somehow, the locus of the story shifted from Bethel to Ai. Possible, but hard to prove. Besides, this is still saying that the OT is wrong. The bottom line is that there was no fortified city in Ai, but the bible says Joshua conqured a city there.



So that's what things are. I'll leave it up to you to struggle with how to coordinate this kind of information with your views of the bible. I think now is a good time to ask ourselves some questions. Why is it that we're so keen on the historicity of the OT? Why does it have to be 100% accurate? And so what if it isn't anyway? Does Christianity collapse if there's an error in the bible?



I can't answer all those questions for you, and I think it is most benefitial for you to find your own answer. But I'll tell you this: I don't think Christianity will collapse even if there's an error in the bible. In the 1600s, christians used to say that if the Earth were a sphere, if the Earth weren't flat, it'll render the bible false and injure the holy faith. But apparently christianity didn't die after people realized that the Earth is actually in a sphere shape.

When I was younger, people used to say that if the evolution theory were true, the bible and the church will be shattered to pieces. But look at the news today, just like that, the Catholic church survives this without a problem. There's no consequence even if Charles Darwin were right.

I don't know if the evolution theory were true, I'm not a scientist, but I want to say is this: even IF it were true, so what?

Friday 20 February 2009

The International



頭先出街睇咗呢齣戲. 其實我都好少會出街俾錢睇戲, 不過今次破例, 主要有兩個原因. 一, Clive Owen 同 Naomi Watts 我都好鍾意, 男o既我覺得極型, 女o既我覺得勁靚. 二, 今次係教會有個朋友叫 Ed 同佢老婆 Esther 叫我一齊去.

齣戲我覺得都唔錯, 由開始就已經 keep 住幾緊張, 不斷有人死, 兩個主角一路追住線索查落去, 係相當唔錯o既 thriller. 動作場面亦比我相像中好, 有一場喺 museum 俾人追殺, 我就覺得拍得幾刺激. 不過去到臨尾開始節制變慢, 好多口水, 同埋 Naomi Watts 突然唔再參與故事, 亦好突兀, 最後一段冇靚女睇亦係一個遺憾. 總括嚟講, 其實我覺得呢齣戲相當唔錯, 可惜尾段乏力, 張力 keep 唔到尾.

至於阿 Ed, 佢都算係個老人家, 又係教會長老, 通常呢類人我都唔係好鍾意. 但係佢唔同, 我好鍾意佢, 因為佢份人冇大冇細, 又非常 open-minded, 所以我好鍾意同佢傾計. 非常期待再同佢出去玩.

Thursday 19 February 2009

Agatha Christie, Cards on the Table



呢本個殺人情況相對比較簡單. 有 8 個人, 分兩間房喺度玩橋牌, Poirot 喺其中一間, 再外加有一個人喺中間間房坐, 後來被殺. 所以呢本書, 由頭到尾只有四個 suspects, 其中有一個係兇手. 我自己覺得比較冇咁鍾意呢本, 因為我完全唔識玩橋牌, 但係 Poirot 就成日問人有關橋牌o既嘢, 睇到一頭霧水. 同埋呢個故事入面 Poirot 好少戲份, 好多時間去咗其他查案o既人度, 呢方面我係覺得有少少失望. 不過個結局好刺激, 衰唔得晒.

總結, 我覺得唔係 Poirot 系列中最出色o既之一.

Agatha Christie, The Murder on the Links



呢本係 Hercule Poirot 系列o既第二本. 雖然好多人話 Christie d 小說去到佢寫作生涯中段嗰堆最好睇, 不過我睇完佢頭兩本, 我都覺得好好睇. 個殺人局估然係好睇, 估到最後一個 chapter 先知邊個係兇手, 途中我都估到好多嘢, 但係兇手就睇唔出. 同埋有趣o既係呢個故事入面個 narrator Arthur Hastings 喺呢本書度識到個女朋友. 其實 Poirot 同 Hastings 都係我鍾意o既角色, 可惜喺 Christie 後來o既小說中 Hastings 好少再有出現, 因為佢轉咗風格, 唔再需要借個 narrator 把口以第一身講故事.

總括, 又一本我覺得好好睇o既偵探小說.

Wednesday 11 February 2009

教會應絕止教友去睇"崖上的波兒"

====================================
致影視處:

本人乃是「浪子回頭」的基督徒,自幼隨家人返教會,近二十年,但後來受不了魔鬼的誘惑,離開了教會,離開了耶穌基督,過著沉淪的罪人生活, 如今已「覺今時而昨非」重新歸向主之懷抱。我們基督徒抱的是一顆耶穌基督的心,「願萬民得救,不願一人沈淪」。我曾經沈淪過,所以我知到耶穌基督乃是惟一 的道路,若不是藉著主基督,沒有人能到父的天堂去。所以聖經乃是世上惟一的真理。有見近日社會上的色情資訊氾濫,侮淫侮盜,不單為了滿足成人荒淫,更要荼 毒我們單純的下一代,我實在看不過眼。

近日上映的合家歡賀年電影《崖上的波兒》(下簡稱:崖波),實在是近期「教壞細路」的代表作:

1. 《崖波》片名意淫,當一位女士站立的時候,其腹無疑就如一幅山崖,而崖上的波兒,明顯意有所指,其心可誅。

2. 《崖波》片中,說及一個五歲的小孩愛上一條魚,片中主角宗介更大膽言明:「不管波兒是魚還是半人魚…都喜歡他」,這明確地是有意鼓吹人獸交。

3.如果《崖波》能是「第一類別」的電影,無疑是間接認同人獸交,如果認同了人獸交,就是主張有性無類,那麼就等於認同同性性交,認同了同性性交就等於鼓 吹同性戀,鼓吹同性戀也就讓同性戀無止境擴張,那麼人類就會絕種。聖經上清楚記載所多瑪城滅亡的故事,如果讓《崖波》成為「第一類別」電影,誓必引致地球 大爆炸。

人獸交在任何地方都是不可接受的,更是違反香港法律,《崖波》實在比「四仔」有過之而無不及,不單不應是合家歡電影,更是不應讓其流通。我們知道所有情慾 的罪都是由眼目而來,故此政府應大力監管資訊的流通,建議回復文革時代的樣板戲,維護我們香港的核心價值,基督教不可踰越的道德標準。

關心香港幸福的基督徒謹啟
====================================

曲線好文, 非常精彩.

Monday 9 February 2009

[Sunday School] Day 5: topic 3 part 2

[cont']



A famous story in the OT. Hezekiah saw the invasion of Sennacherib, but he somehow fended off the powerful opponent.



The Sennacherib Prism tells a similar story. It says that Sennacherib took a lot of cities of Judah, and laid siege to Jerusalem, but it is interesting that it never says he succeeded in taking Jerusalem.



We have also found the tunnel associated with this story. Hezekiah feared that Sennacherib might cut off their water supply, so he dug a tunnel to channel water from Gihon Spring to inside the walls of Jerusalem.



In the tunnel, we found an inscription recording how the tunnel was dug. Apparently, they started digging on both ends of the tunnel and tried to meet in the middle, which sounds so ridiculously difficult, but they did it nonetheless somehow.



A seal that might have belonged to a subordinate of Jeroboam II, the Israelite king.



Possibly a seal that belonged to the last king of Israel.



Cool, a ring-seal!!



It might have belonged to the son of Hilkiah who found the "scroll of torah" (some scholars thought that this might be the Book of Deuteronomy) in the temple during the reign of Josiah.



This one was discovered from an official dig site, so it must be the real deal.



Might have belonged to the grandfather of Ezra.



This bulla might have belonged to Baruch, the secretary of Jeremiah.



A similar one, but with a portion of a fingerprint of someone.



Might have belonged to Jerehmeel the prince, who tried to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch.



Might have belonged to a contemporary of Jeremiah.

Now, we have seen a lot of archaeological finds that might have confirmed a number of details that are told in the OT. We have not "proved" the OT this way, because there are more things that can't be proved than those that can be proved. But I think, these things are cool to look at. At least much cooler than those fake stuff (e.g., Jesus' blood, the ark of Noah).

But to be fair, next time, we'll look at things that contradict the OT. Gird your loins!!!

[to be cont']

Friday 6 February 2009

The Last House on the Left (1972)



聽講呢齣戲好激, 所以都要見識下. 故事講有個女仔同佢個 friend 俾班衰人姦殺咗, 而呢班友仔又唔識死走咗去個女仔屋企投宿, 俾佢家人報復返... 其實幾乎就係將 Ingmar Bergman 齣經典黑白片 The Virgin Spring 重拍一次, 不過就將姦殺過程變成重點, 有咁核突拍得咁核突, 亦將個節奏加快, 將原作嗰種藝術 feel 同埋個父親內心想報復嗰種衝突減去 (原作個老豆仲殺咗個細路; Last House 就細路變青年, 仲係自殺而死). 比起原作當然係低級好多, 但係我覺得有一方面係成功, 就係班仆街奸人, 真係賤到無倫, 所以到結尾報復情節, 真係大快人心.

我覺得呢齣都唔差, 因為奸人太賤, 所以觀眾其實一定會睇得投入, 想睇佢地點仆街, 睇到尾都會好專注.

評分: 3.5/5

Don't Look in the Basement



Youtube 真係偉大, 可以睇到好多聽講過, 但係從未睇過o既好多驚嚇片, 成齣有晒, 連 BT 都唔使. 早幾晚就睇咗呢齣, 個名好似好型o既舊片. 故事講有個護士妹受僱去間瘋人院做嘢, 不過佢去到嗰時, 個院長已經被人殺咗. 成齣戲就係講呢間瘋人院入面o既病人越變越癲, 同埋呢個護士妹死唔死得去.

其實呢齣戲個節制都幾慢, 個 twist 亦太易估中, 幾位角色亦冇乜突出之處, 雖然呢齣戲有 d 朵, 但係唔算有幾驚嚇. 血腥場面唔算差, 結局大暴動都算幾型, 不過要等成個半鐘先去到嗰度, 真係有 d 悶.

評分: 2.5/5

Hip Hop 特首

尋日喺 myradio 節目中聽到有首歌好正, 曾蔭權勁 rap, 型到爆, 有興趣一定要聽下首歌.

Wednesday 4 February 2009

老闆, 死海古卷有冇興趣?

有人想出售兩塊死海古卷, 將會喺 San Francisco Antiquarian Book Fair 度擺檔!!! 唔知佢真定假, 但係真係好頂癮.

==============================
February 13-15th at the Concourse Exhibition Center, 635 Eighth Street

MICHAEL R. THOMPSON, BOOKSELLERS,
8242 West Third Street, Suite 230, Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (323) 658-1901; Fax: (323) 658-5380;
e-mail address: mrtbooks@mrtbooksla.com

Booth 107

29. [DEAD SEA SCROLLS]. Original fragment from Daniel, Chapter 5, Verse
13-16. Found at Qumran, on the Dead Sea, in Cave 4, some time between
1952 and 1956. The fragment itself dates between 50 BC - AD 68 (the
Roman destruction of Qumran). 32 mm. x 30 mm., written in Hebrew on
brown animal hide. Preserved between glass, and enclosed in cloth
chemise, in full black morocco clamshell slipcase. $275,000

Includes the verse translated in English as: "Art thou that Daniel,
which art of the children of the captiuity of Iudah..."

30. [DEAD SEA SCROLLS]. Original fragment from Exodus, Chapter 18, Verse
6-8. Found at Qumran, on the Dead Sea, in Cave 4, some time between 1952
and 1956. The fragment itself dates between 150 BC - AD 68 (the Roman
destruction of Qumran). 11 x 34 mm. written in Hebrew on brown animal
hide. Preserved between glass, and enclosed in cloth chemise, in full
black morocco clamshell slipcase. $145,000

Includes the verse translated in English as: "Moses told his
father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharoah and to the Egyptians
for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had befallen them on the
journey, and how the Lord had delivered them.”

http://mrtbooksla.blogspot.com/2009/02/some-highlights-from-our-display-at-san.html
==============================

Sunday 1 February 2009

[Sunday School] Day 4: topic 3 part 1



We'll now talk about archaeology and the Old Testament. If you google "archaeology" and "bible", you'll probably run into hits that involve a man named Ron Wyatt. This person claimed to have "discovered" quite a few things, just to name a few, Ark of Noah, Ark of the Covenant, Mt. Sinai, chariot wheels in Red Sea, and Jesus' blood.

I know, looking at this ridiculous list, you would think: "what idiots would believe in a scam like this?"



Christians would, I tell you. Just a simple random google exercise brought me to this person's blog, which talks about Ron Wyatt's "discovery" of wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea with excitement. And not just him, look at how people make comments to praise Wyatt's discovery and how it "proved" that the Bible is true!



And you might think: "hey, you got to be fair; it was just a random Christian's blog." But the problem is, even a well-respected Chinese Christian newspaper used Ron Wyatt as a credible source, to prove the reliability of the Bible!!! Lame, lame, lame.



And of course, you must have also heard of this Chinese movie, made by a well-respected Christian organization. They claimed that they had found the Ark of Noah, despite the fact that they hadn't done any studying at all while they released the movie. And half a decade has passed, they still haven't made much progress. Not even one shred of direct evidence that says they had found Noah's Ark. Shame, shame, shame.



What I found soooo amazing about these things that we have seen is that: why the heck do Christians so love to talk about these fake stuff while we actually have the genuine archaeological finds to look at?

We'll look at finds that will enrich our understanding of the OT, then look at ones that contradict the OT, and end with a discussion.



See the info yourself. Merneptah is a pharoah of Egypt; this thing is about the cool stuff that he had accomplished.



The discoverer on the left. The mummy of the original owner of the stele on the right. He doesn't look too happy now, does he?



As far as I know, this is the earliest reference to "Israel". Dates to around 1200 BCE.



This 9th/8th century inscriptions is famous for its reference to "the house of David." But there's some problem. There's no word divider between the words "house" and "David", so some scholars question whether this is saying "the house of David" at all, because it would be just a place name, such as "Bethdod", hence no word divider because it's just a one-word place name.



Another early inscription. I want to point this out because this thing says "the house of Yahweh", and there apparently is no word divider between the words "house" and "Yahweh"! So I think it is still at least possible that the Tel Dan Inscription does say "the house of David".



Cool. This thing talks about the cool stuff that Shalmaneser III had done.



And one of those "cool" stuff is that he received tributes from the Israelites king Jehu. Jehu, what a loser.



Similar stuff, but this one is about a Moabite king.



2 things to note. First, it tells of how Moab was overpowered by Israel for a long time, but then shook off the oppression; same story told in 2 Kings. Second, it talks about how Mesha would slaughter everyone/thing when he conquered a city as an offering to his god. A parallel custom to what we read in the "cruel" parts of the Old Testament that promote a "ban".

[to be continued]