Sunday, January 31, 2010

Other Interesting Facts About Ham's Descendants

If we take the view that the Bible is written in order to give us information about God and His plan of salvation for mankind, it can be noted that Ham's descendants were, generally speaking, the nations which aligned themselves against the Israelites. Not only the Canaanites, but other sons of Ham became Israel's enemies. Egypt, Assyria, the Philistines, the Babylonians -- all were from the line of Ham. In Leviticus chapter 18, God warns Moses to tell the Israelites not to participate in the sins of the nations which they had seen in Egypt and in the nations around them. God tells them not to defile themselves by these depraved practices, or they, too, will be cast out of the land. In fact, in the Bible, Leviticus 19 continues the account by noting that Israel should be holy, like the Lord their God. Of course, Israel did not always live up to that standard, and in fact, one of the reasons why Israel went into exile was that the nation sinned even more than those nations which had been cast out before them. Psalm 14:1-3 makes it clear that 'there is no one who does good, not even one' (v.3), so it goes without saying (yet I will say it anyway!) that I am not saying that Ham's descendants or the Israelites had any kind of monopoly on sinful behavior.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Since Ham Sinned, Why Is Canaan Cursed?

As mentioned in the previous post, when Ham mocks his father, Noah pronounces what appears to be a curse upon Ham's son Canaan. I have read several explanations of this matter:
  1. When a son did something commendable in that culture, his father was given a portion of the credit for it. For example, when David killed Goliath, King Saul immediately wanted to know whose son David was, probably so that he could commend David's father, Jesse. I suppose the opposite was also true. When a son disgraced his father, the father shouldered a portion of the blame. When Ham mocked Noah, Noah wouldn't want to curse Ham directly, or he would in effect be bringing that curse/blame upon himself as Ham's father. By cursing Canaan, the curse/blame would be laid upon Ham. Reasonable, yet it still seems unfair to Canaan.
  2. Some say that the curse Noah brought upon Canaan seemed all out of proportion to the incident. Therefore, these people conclude that Ham must have done something far more indecent to his father than merely seeing him exposed. They note that perhaps since Canaan was Ham's fourth son, whatever Ham had done had prevented Noah from having another (i.e, a fourth) son. Therefore, Noah cursed Ham's fourth son. Again, it seems unfair to Canaan. Also, the Bible does not generally sugarcoat the sins of the person being discussed. If Ham had done something of a more depraved nature, it probably would have been stated.
  3. Another option is open to us. I have not fully studied it through, but it is interesting. Rather than the emphasis being placed upon Ham/Canaan's curse, the passage is seen as being prophetic of the contributions each one of Noah's sons would make to the world. In the Bible, when a phrase such as 'king of kings' or 'lord of lords' is used, it is nearly always in the sense that the individual being described is the supreme example of that position. In this view, then, when Noah says that Noah says that 'The lowest of slaves will he (Canaan) be to his brothers.' (Genesis 9:25), this view maintains that the wording is better rendered 'servant of servants', i.e., Ham/Canaan's lines would be characterized as being a most excellent servant to the other brothers. Then, a long line of the achievements and advances brought about by Ham/Canaan's descendants for the good of mankind is noted. Since you are probably wondering, as I was, where the curse/punishment is for Ham/Canaan in that scenario, it is also maintained that although the descendants of Ham produced many inventions, they themselves did not appear to have profited from them, and often, others took the credit or reaped the benefits (financial or otherwise) from these discoveries. I am intrigued by this explanation, yet need to study it further before being committed to it. When I figure out how to do it, I will give a link to the site where I read of such an interpretation, so that you can check it out for yourself.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Genesis 9:24-27 Blessings and Curses

When Noah wakes up and finds out about how his youngest son, Ham, has made him an object of mockery, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." (Genesis (9:25 NIV) He also had this to say about his other sons: "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth, may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave." (Genesis 9:26-27 NIV)

Some questions immediately pop into my mind.
  • Why is Canaan (Ham's son) cursed instead of Ham, who actually mocked his father Noah?
  • Why is Canaan to be the slave of Shem and Japheth?
  • Why is Japheth the one who will be blessed with extended territory?
  • Why would it be considered a blessing for Japheth to 'live in the tents of Shem' (v.27)? How about just letting him have his own tents? ;) Seriously, though, Noah's words seem rather mysterious.
Noah goes on to live another 350 years, so it is apparent that he is none the worse for wear because of this incident. However, because of Noah's words, we get the sense that something very important is going on in this pronouncement of blessings and curses. What is it?

It may be that part of the severity of Noah's reaction is due to the importance of maintaining his authority in his family. Respect for one's father and mother is so important that God devoted a commandment to it. (Exodus 20:12 ) However, the Ten Commandments aren't given until later. "The authorities that exist have been established by God", says Paul in the New Testament book of Romans Chapter 13 (NIV). Again, this statement of Paul's is made long after the events of Genesis. Yet, the authority Noah exercises in his family is evident. Two main reasons God ordained authorities are 1) so that God can continue to work out His plan for the salvation of mankind and 2) so sinful man can be restrained enough from the effects of sin (his/her own sin or that of others) that he can have some kind of normal life. Anarchy is not really all that attractive a state within which to live or raise a family.

However, some commentators have seen this passage as not merely a response to Ham's irreverence. Some see it as also being prophetic of the nature of the contributions of these three branches (Shem, Ham, Japheth) of Noah's family tree. Seen in this light, it may help to explain the otherwise puzzling things which Noah says. More on this to come.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Shem, Ham & Japheth: Three Branches of Noah's Family Tree

As you may have noticed, I skipped over the Biblical accounts of the creation, and now I will skip over the account of the flood. I am very interested in both accounts and will come back to these subjects at a later time, for the following reasons:

  • I need to do more studying of these matters, before I can present these subjects in the fullest light. Both creationism and the flood are complicated subjects, and I want to do the best job that I can of presenting them. I'm still thinking about the best way to accomplish that.
  • One focus of this blog is on Biblical genealogies. I'm trying to examine passages which give information about these matters, so I'm skipping ahead to these passages. However, at times I need to mention certain events which may occur between these passages so that they will make sense in context.
So far, the genealogy of Noah's family has revealed that he had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. From them came the rest of the population of earth. After the flood, Noah plants a vineyard, and winds up becoming drunk. This seems a rather shocking start to the post-flood story of mankind. After all, the flood has just occurred, which wiped out those who had rebelled against God. Was it really smart to make this kind of beginning? We could look at it two ways. One, this is just a sad reflection that, although Noah seemed to desire to follow God's ways, he, too, had a sinful nature as a result of the fall of Adam & Eve, and was no less susceptible to the temptations of sin than any of us. Also, some postulate that conditions on earth had changed as a result of the flood. The protective water canopy which used to shield the earth was gone, since the Bible speaks of the floodgates of heaven being opened (Genesis 7:11). Perhaps this affected the lives of humans more than we know. Certainly, after the flood, people lived far shorter lives than they had previously. Sure, there were those who made it past 100 years of age, but in general, the lifespans noted in the Bible undergo a notable shortening. Some believe that things were so different that when Noah drank wine, the alcoholic effect was stronger than it had been previously, and he got drunk more easily, accidentally. The latter sounds a bit sketchy, I know, although in defense of this position, Genesis 9:21 says that Noah went to his vineyard and 'drank some of its wine'. It doesn't seem to indicate that he went overboard on a drinking binge. However, I may be reading too much into it. At any rate, he lies uncovered in his tent, and becomes the subject of mockery by his son Ham. Shem and Japheth take a garment and, walking backwards with their faces turned aside so as to not look upon Noah, cover their father's nakedness.

What does this have to do with genealogy? Well, in the process of telling this story, Genesis chapter 9 reveals that Ham is the youngest son (v. 24), that he has a son named Canaan, and that Noah lived 350 years more after the flood, for a total lifespan of 950 years. (There is probably a lesson here for those of us who are interested in genealogy to pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant family stories. Those little details may become important in the future.)

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Genesis 4:17-22 Raising More Cain

I realized after ending the post on the information about Cain in Genesis 4, that I had not continued to explore the rest of the line of Cain which is outlined in that chapter. When we left Cain, he had built a city. He named it after his son Enoch. Cain's family tree would look like this if we put it in visual form:


Adam
Cain
Enoch
Irad
Mehujael
Methushael
Lamech

Now Lamech marries not one but two women -- Adah and Zillah.
Adah's son is named Jabal. Zillah has two sons: Jubal and Tubal-Cain. Tubal-Cain has a sister named Naamah.

Genesis 4: The Line of Cain

As promised, we are going to go back and take a look at the information given in Genesis 4 regarding the genealogy of Cain. Instead of just giving you a run-through of the material found there, which you can read for yourself, I thought it would be interesting to point out some things that are in that chapter. Even if you have read this story before, it always pays to go back and just take another look to see if you can glean further insights. If you are new to Bible study, you can find a copy of the Bible online if you don't have one.

Some things to think about:

Cain and Abel had different occupations, but both felt the need to bring an offering of some type to the Lord. Why did God accept Abel's offering but not Cain's? Some say it was because the offering was supposed to be a blood sacrifice. However, other grain and drink offerings seem to have been acceptable in certain contexts, so that is probably not the whole picture. Others point to each individual's character. Abel is said to be a righteous man(Matthew 23:35), but Cain shows by his immediate response of anger that something was already wrong in his attitude and in his heart. Still others point out the subtle yet pointed difference in the quality of their offerings: Cain brought 'some of the fruits of the soil', while Abel brought 'fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock'. (Genesis 4:3-4 NIV)

Hebrews 11:4 (NIV) gives us some insight into this question of why Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's was rejected: "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did." This implies that Cain's sacrifice was done without faith. Maybe he was just going through the motions. Nevertheless,
  1. God cared about Cain's spiritual condition. In Genesis 4:4-7, we see that God notes the angry, downcast attitude of Cain and warns him of the dangers of sin, which crouch right at his door, ready to overcome him. What a vivid picture of the serious and destructive nature of sin! God also gives Cain fair warning of the consequences of continuing in this path, yet holds forth the way of escape from this attack. Remember, God already knew the murderous anger which was probably beginning to build in Cain's heart against Abel.
  2. Cain almost immediately does the exact opposite of what God suggests. He gives in to his angry emotions and, in a fashion which seems all the more horrible because of its thin veneer of brotherly affection and innocence, tricks his unassuming brother into accompanying him to an outlying field, where he kills him. Then Cain follows up this act with what can best be described as disrespectful indifference when God inquires as to Abel's location. This is made doubly horrific when we consider that Abel was a keeper of flocks of animals, and that Cain has not only subtly disdained Abel's honest profession, ('Am I my brother's keeper?' (Genesis 4:9 NIV) but also treated Abel as though he was of less value than an animal from his flock, which would have been sought after if it had gone missing. Of course God knew where Abel was all along, but He was giving Cain an opportunity to repent. God is continuing to reach out to this wayward son.
  3. Unrepentant Cain is banished. He can no longer be a worker of the soil, because he is under a curse and the ground will no longer yield its crops as it had before. Instead, he will be a restless wanderer on the earth. Cain believes himself to be hidden from God's presence and soon to become a victim of a revenge killing. God graciously puts a mark upon Cain so that no one would kill him. Then Cain goes out and lives in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
  4. Nod means 'wandering', yet Cain begins to build a city (v.17). He and his wife are expecting a child, and perhaps he believes he can overcome his sentence of being a restless wanderer on the earth by this project. You'd think he'd know better, but he is certainly not the only human to try to avoid the consequences of sin by engaging in a flurry of activity. It is interesting to note that those who persist in sin are often pictured as restless and unsettled. For example, Jude 1:12-13 portrays the wicked as clouds being blown along, as wild waves of the sea and as wandering stars. Isaiah 48:22 (NIV) says, "There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked." In contrast, Psalm 119:165 (NIV) states: "Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble." Not that believers don't have struggles -- just that they have a 'peace which transcends all understanding' (Philippians 4:7 NIV) even while the storms rage around them.
  5. Where did Cain get his wife? He may have had this wife before he killed Abel and was banished. Otherwise it is hard to imagine any woman being willing to align herself with his cause. As you see from Genesis chapter 5, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain, Abel and Seth, and these also had numerous children. We aren't told how old Cain was before he married, but apparently he married either a sister or a niece. The restrictions against such behavior do not come until later in the Bible. Nowadays marrying such a close relative is prohibited, mainly because of the greatly increased possibility of passing on harmful genetic mutations. Adam and Eve, though, were created without such problems and the effects of mutations in the following generations would take time to accumulate. Therefore, it would probably have been acceptable to marry a close relative. This still sounds a bit strange to us, but, if we take the Genesis account as factual, we have to realize that later, after the flood, the only humans alive were Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Therefore, all humans are from Noah's family, whose members would necessarily have had to marry among themselves to continue. So I guess we all have a 'skeleton relative' or two in our own closets. Hopefully not literally.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Max on Monday


I decided to limit Max's observations to Monday. This is primarily to show the proper respect towards Scripture when I write about it. I appreciate humor, but didn't want to mix the levity of Max's observations with the more serious matter of commenting upon what I have read in the Bible. Also, Max is pushy enough and I didn't think it would be good to give him the full run of the week. HEY! I will, however, allow him to have his own special day on Monday to say what he would like to say. I don't know whether to be grateful or insulted. Hopefully, he will forgive me. It will probably depend upon the quality of snack you give me as a peace offering. Yes, I think that will do nicely. As I said before, he loves rawhide.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Genesis 5: Adam to Noah

Genesis 5 outlines the line from Adam to Noah. (Note: I realize that there is more genealogical information in Genesis 4 which we haven't covered yet, but we'll go back there soon.)

Adam lived 130 years, then had Seth. Adam lived 800 more years, and died at age 930. Adam continued to have more offspring, both sons and daughters.

When Seth was 105, he fathered Enosh, lived 803 more years, had more offspring. He died at the age of 912.

Enosh became a dad at the age of 90, to son Kenan. Enosh lived 815 more years and had more children. Enosh lived until age 905.

Kenan became the father of Mahalalel at the age of 70. Kenan lived 840 more years, having more children, and died at the age of 910.

Mahalalel had Jared at the age of 65, then lived 830 more years, having more children. Therefore, he died at the age of 895.

Jared was 162 when he had his son, Enoch. After Enoch's birth, Jared lived 800 more years and fathered more descendants. Jared died at 962.

Enoch had Methuselah at the age of 65, and the Bible notes that Enoch not only lived 300 more years, but was noted as having 'walked with God' for that period and having other children. Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years, but then this happens: instead of dying, 'he was no more, because God took him away." (Genesis 5:24 NIV) Lest we think this is just a creative way of saying that he died, the writer of Hebrews 11:5 later notes: "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God." (It may also be noted that Hebrews 11 contains quite a list of people who had lived by faith, following God and believing His promises.)

Methuselah lived 187 years and became the father of Lamech. After that he lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years -- the longest lifespan recorded in the Bible. (Hence the expression 'as old as Methuselah'.) Want to hear something else that is interesting? I have read that Methuselah's name means 'after he dies it will come'. Methuselah's father Enoch was a prophet, and I suppose God revealed to him the information that after M. died, judgment would come. And, of course, it did. You can add the figures yourself from Genesis 5:25, 5:28 and 7:6, and you will see that Methuselah died in the year the flood came. I had to make myself a little chart to keep all the figures in mind. It looked something lke this:

(Note: The 0-969 timeline below refers to Methuselah's lifespan, and the events are listed as they occur during the years of Methuselah's life.)


0---------187----------369------------869------964-----969

187 - Methuselah's son Lamech is born.
369 - Lamech's son Noah is born.
869 - After Noah is 500 years old, Shem, Japheth and Ham are born.
964- Lamech dies before his father Methuselah does.
969 - Methuselah dies. Flood comes.

Lamech, at the age of 182 years, had Noah, then lived 595 more years and had other children. Lamech lived to be 777 years old, which meant that he died about 5 years before his father's death, and the arrival of the flood.

After Noah was 500 years old, he had Shem, Ham and Japheth. Noah, Mrs. Noah, their three sons and their wives were the only humans on the ark. For God said, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, ...everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark -- you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you."
(Genesis 6:17 NIV)

I think I will end this post here, because it is the end of this part of the genealogy. However, I have to point something out. It always seemed a shame that so many people perished in the flood. Was God somehow unfair for bringing such judgment upon them? Aside from the fact that we all sin, and are deserving of judgment (including Noah and his family), there is the fact that Enoch had preached about the upcoming judgment upon evildoers. See Jude chapter 1 (actually the whole book is only one chapter) to get an idea of how conditions were upon the earth in those days. Although verse 14 seems to speak more about the final coming of the Lord in judgment, Enoch preached a message against the sinfulness of the people of those days. He repeats the word 'ungodly' four times in that one verse. Sometimes prophets received a message from God and parts of it were for the present time and parts could refer to incidents which would occur centuries later...in this case, the judgment at the flood, the judgment against godless and immoral ones who crept into the early church years later, and the judgment against the ungodly at the time of the final coming of Christ. God's character doesn't change. Although Enoch may not have understood the full implications of his prophecy, the theme of punishment against ungodliness is clear. Genesis 6:5 speaks of how "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Noah also apparently preached as he fashioned the ark (see 2 Peter 2:5), so the people of that day had ample opportunity to repent. Sadly, no one apart from his own family seems to have listened.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Best of Both Worlds: Genealogies in the Bible

I enjoy genealogy, so I thought it would be fun to do a bit of exploring about some of the various genealogies in the Bible. At least it seemed that this might be an area that I could write about that not too many genealogy blogs cover. You probably think I'm crazy. Who would want to dive into that labyrinth of unpronounceable names? Yet there is a lot of information in these accounts if you can get past the seemingly endless lists of names. I know that some of you may not regard the Bible as inerrant or factual, but that will be the subject of another post some time in the not-too-distant future. At that time I'll explain that there is a whole lot of evidence for trusting the accuracy of the Bible. Right now, just give me the benefit of the doubt and see if you don't think that it at least has the potential to be interesting. At any rate, the subject is one about which all genealogists should probably have at least a passing understanding.

First of all, let me say that all genealogies in the Bible are not alike. The writers of various Scriptural books often had their own purposes in including these lists of names. Sometimes the accounts are linear, that is, they proceed from father to son and so on. In another account, the generations may be telescoped. That is, generations may be left out. Actually, 'left out' may not be the best way to express that concept. Sometimes the unnamed generations between the names were just assumed to be familiar to the reader, so they didn't need to be listed. For example, nearly everyone knows at least the bare-bones account of Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Abel, and the sad story of the world's first murder. These genealogical lines are listed in Genesis (chapter 4). However, later on in Genesis 4:28, we are told that after Abel has been murdered and Cain banished, another son named Seth is born. As the writer of Genesis continues his account, Genesis 5 gives a kind of recap as to what has happened so far. The genealogy lists Adam, then continues right on to his third son, Seth, as though Cain and Abel never even existed. It is not an error, or a sign of disrespect. Rather, the focus throughout the Bible is upon God's plan, and how He reveals it to the world through a family line and a nation. So in this case, the author just moves right on through to the next link in this account so that this story can continue.

In some cases, the writer just wanted to let it be known that the person at the focus of the genealogy or of the account was a member of a certain tribe, yet the writer didn't need to spell all of the other details out because they were not important to his purpose at the moment. So although detractors may smugly point out the 'errors' in various Scriptural passages which contain genealogies, it may just be that the author edited the material for his own purposes, and the full genealogy is available elsewhere in another Bible book. The author just wanted to let it be known that the individual descended from this particular family. In this case, when someone is said to be a 'son of' someone, it may be that they are a descendant of this individual. It can be tricky to figure out the actual lines, and in some cases, they may not be fully spelled out anywhere in the Bible, but one thing that we can be sure of is that we will be given all of the information that we need in order to make an intelligent response to this most important story. For the Bible, although it may not contain all of the information which we might want to know, can be trusted to provide a true account of what it does reveal. (Next post: More on the Genesis 5 genealogy)

Monday, January 18, 2010

Looking Back

One of the intents of this blog is to impart some genealogical information. Although I've done a lot of reading about the subject, I'm certainly no expert (yet). However, I'd like to pass along anything I find which may be of use to other researchers. In 2010, I also hope to be able to actually start more organized research about my own family tree. Why? Many people wonder why genealogists even bother to be concerned about a bunch of dead people, even if they are relatives. Some researchers say that knowing where they come from helps them to figure out where they are going. Other people wonder if spending so much time researching others' lives will cause them to miss out on creating their own 'story'. There is some validity to both viewpoints. I think a balance is needed between the two extremes. Genealogy (to me) is like a rear-view mirror: it can be useful to see what has gone on behind you and can help you to see things which may impact your present travels. However, as with an actual car's mirror, you can only spend a limited time looking back. So my priority is my living family members. Yet, the Bible claims that each individual is unique, a special creation from the hand of God and created for His glory and purposes. "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well...your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13-16 -- New International Version) So I wouldn't call it a waste of time to find out about our relatives' and ancestors' lives. I love hearing other people's stories. To me, it brings glory to God as I see how He has preserved them through various adventures and trials. As the Psalm continues: "How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you." (Psalm 139:17-18 NIV)

Haiti: The Underside of the Embroidery

All of the world has been transfixed by the severity and human tragedy of the earthquake in Haiti. Today in church, we learned that our congregation has at least six families who are still waiting to hear about the fate of loved ones in that nation. One deacon, although having just heard about the death of one relative and the news that another has almost certainly been trapped in a collapsed building and is likely dead, retained his trustful attitude of waiting to see what God would ordain and accomplish in this situation. Other news from a missionary couple our church supports was horrendous: they themselves lost 53 family members. I can't even conceive of that. The largest Baptist church in Haiti lost around 400 people and around 70 Baptist pastors died when their buildings collapsed. What can you say to those experiencing such tragedy? Any words of comfort seem too trite. Yet as Christians, we believe both in God's control over the situation and in His goodness. Why would He allow this? We see only the underside of the embroidery, the tangled and broken threads. Some day, whether in the near future or when we see Him, all of our questions will be answered. His character does not change. We count on that and wait to see the top side of the picture, the beautiful part where the picture He is creating comes into view. Meanwhile we pray, we give and we wait.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Gumby

Remember Gumby? Like many children growing up in the sixties and seventies, Gumby was a part of my TV viewing. I didn't really watch all that much TV. I preferred playing outside. Yet, coming home after kindergarten, few things went better with a lunch of peanut butter and jelly on graham crackers, with apple slices and chocolate milk than a cartoon. I would laugh at the antics of this green figure skating around the screen with his faithful sidekick Pokey. Well, sadly, Gumby's creator--Art Clokey-- passed away recently. You can google some of the articles about this man for interesting details about his life. He also did the 'Davey and Goliath' series. (Heeey Daaaveeey) I loved the claymation and Gumby no doubt influenced my decision to pursue a film degree (with a great interest in animation). Thanks Gumby, and thanks Mr. Clokey for a great series. You are no doubt sitting up in heaven eating your favorite food, watching our antics and laughing. At least I hope so.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Why 'Kaleidoscript'?

I was thinking of a name for this blog and wondering what direction to take. I have so many interests. (Nope, not going to list them here because, like an actor at an awards ceremony, I'm sure to leave something out. Keep reading this blog and they will all come out eventually!) I did not want to lock myself into a category which might make posts on other topics seem off topic. Sure, you're supposed to keep somewhat focused so that you can attract a community of interested readers, but the trouble is that there are so many subjects which I would like to write something about that I decided to just begin and see where it would lead. I do have certain favorite topics--Bible, genealogy, film, family--which will probably form a skeleton from which I can hang other posts, but so many things interest me that I hope there will always be something different to discover and write. (It's called living.) One thing I can say is that the posts will be family-friendly -- no profanity or other things which would distract from the 'beautiful words' I want to write. (yeesh, ...ack, ack, ack) Anyway, I was thinking it was a kaleidoscope of topics which I wanted to write about, so I looked up 'kaleidoscope' in the dictionary to see if the word had any interesting facts or pictures in its entry. (Yes, also to be sure that the word was spelled e,i as opposed to i,e -- so much for the 'i before e, except after c' rule in grammar.) Now, my Greek is about twenty years rusty, but the dictionary gave the etymology of the word and lo and behold, it is made up of several parts: Greek 'kalos' (beautiful) and 'eidos' (form) plus 'scope' from 'scopein' (look at). I just substituted 'script' for 'scope' at the end of the word (from the Latin 'scribere' (to write) since I wanted to write. Since Scripture was a related word and a definite topic, I think it fell together rather nicely: Kaleidoscript. I may have mangled the Greek, but at least this will give you an idea of the direction towards which I am aiming. (Let us now prepare the defenses for the attack of the grammar police.)

Friday, January 15, 2010

The Labrapithound


Meet Max, our fur buddy, who is part Labrador Retriever, Pit Bull, and Bloodhound.

Favorite things: rawhide chews, chasing balls (no kidding -- I am a Retriever, you know!), sleeping in the sun (who doesn't like that?!), stealing socks and other unmentionables (borrowing, borrowing), flying through the air like a superhero (more on this later), and, of course, eating whatever he can beg, steal or ah, borrow.

Favorite toys: So far he destroys anything except his very thick bone (and I'm working on that) and an old deflated basketball, which he carries proudly about as he does his yard patrols.

Pet peeves: sudden noises, the postman, the UPS guy, backyard dive-bomber birds, and not being invited to sit at the dinner table. Max will undoubtedly have his own opinions and comments to add to these blog discussions. My stuff is in bold. Pushy? Definitely. In his defense, no one is a better guard dog, and on a cold winter night, he does make quite a warm blanket -- although, sometimes when my husband and I are sleeping, I awake to find myself hanging out over the edge of the bed, while a mysterious black lump sleeps contentedly curled up in the middle of the bed like he owns the place.

So, citizens, if you happen to see a sleek black form flashing by, and look down to discover that the food which you were eating a second ago is no longer in your hand, (hey!) don't be alarmed, it is only the Labrapithound. I resent that characterization, although I do kinda like the superhero reference. xxx Max

 Click here to read about Max's adventure with Skunk-Vader.