i said heracles?

Sorry, i misread it at the time. Congrats on getting it right.

In the end incest is wincest!

From what I can find that is what it says in the King James Bible. Not the International Bible.

And it is a slightly different translation but they do mean the same thing if you look in context. The first translation you posted is saying that there were not plants on the Earth yet. That this is BEFORE the shrubs had appeared, just like the second verse.

But a lot of the English translations are difficult to understand simply because it's a lot of different people trying to translate a language they don't fully understand. After all, the original texts are in old Biblical Hebrew and sometimes things get written in a way that doesn't make the original message the forefront anymore.

This comes from the differences in languages, in Hebrew there were a lot of words that meant different things in different contexts. Such as Matthew 5:5 "the meek shall inherit the Earth" While this is what the texts say a more accurate translation would be "the humble will inherit the Earth" because of the slight differences in the word meek and humble while in Hebrew one word meant both meek and humble in different contexts.

What two things are you quoting? You've got to give me some context or I have no idea what you're referencing. King James Bible? New International Version?

First translation is from Hebrew to English via the New Torah translation. The Second is the same passage from the New International Bible translation. The same work, 2 vastly different translations.

From what I can find that is what it says in the King James Bible. Not the International Bible.

And it is a slightly different translation but they do mean the same thing if you look in context. The first translation you posted is saying that there were not plants on the Earth yet. That this is BEFORE the shrubs had appeared, just like the second verse.

But a lot of the English translations are difficult to understand simply because it's a lot of different people trying to translate a language they don't fully understand. After all, the original texts are in old Biblical Hebrew and sometimes things get written in a way that doesn't make the original message the forefront anymore.

This comes from the differences in languages, in Hebrew there were a lot of words that meant different things in different contexts. Such as Matthew 5:5 "the meek shall inherit the Earth" While this is what the texts say a more accurate translation would be "the humble will inherit the Earth" because of the slight differences in the word meek and humble while in Hebrew one word meant both meek and humble in different contexts.

Not true at all. They have found texts from the period of the bible and found that they are incredibly consistent with the modern versions. To the point of being nearly exact. Do a little research on it, the message hasn't changed. Granted the bible isn't every single story that was written down at the time but for good reason. The history of the formation of the bible is fascinating.

Unless you mean it was interpreted differently back then. Which it was. Cultures take the bible to mean different things. Not to say the bible doesn't have a true meaning, you just have to study it enough to understand the whole of it. There's a reason for most of Christianity it was priests who were authorities on the bible and the less educated had to take their word for it.

Genisis 2:5: " and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground."

"and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,"

No shrubs vs. every shrub.

What two things are you quoting? You've got to give me some context or I have no idea what you're referencing. King James Bible? New International Version?

First translation is from Hebrew to English via the New Torah translation. The Second is the same passage from the New International Bible translation. The same work, 2 vastly different translations.

From what I can find that is what it says in the King James Bible. Not the International Bible.

And it is a slightly different translation but they do mean the same thing if you look in context. The first translation you posted is saying that there were not plants on the Earth yet. That this is BEFORE the shrubs had appeared, just like the second verse.

But a lot of the English translations are difficult to understand simply because it's a lot of different people trying to translate a language they don't fully understand. After all, the original texts are in old Biblical Hebrew and sometimes things get written in a way that doesn't make the original message the forefront anymore.

This comes from the differences in languages, in Hebrew there were a lot of words that meant different things in different contexts. Such as Matthew 5:5 "the meek shall inherit the Earth" While this is what the texts say a more accurate translation would be "the humble will inherit the Earth" because of the slight differences in the word meek and humble while in Hebrew one word meant both meek and humble in different contexts.

I'd be surprised if you could even walk the distance of a 9hole round.

wow there champ, you might cut yourself on that edge

Not sharp enough. I just have a severe dislike of being messed with while doing a sport. It is the same in my mind as throwing balls into the middle of the court during a tennis match or running onto a football field in the middle of a game.

liar.
a german would be able to say "türkische schweine" correctly.
you know.
because germans are actually capable of speaking their own language.

There is no underlying message of a genocide.

A genocide has one point: Are you killing people based on race?

If you ticked yes to this question, it's a genocide
If you ticked no to this question, it's not a genocide.

Any sources? I live in a country with quite a decent number of immigrants and the crime rate has gone down significantly in the past few decades.

I don't even know how to respond to this it's so dumb.

That's like 2 or 3 dozen crimes by illegal aliens in this year in a country with 300 million people and you're using that as evidence that government backed immigration is bad. Seriously, what are you on?

Enchanted robes?
If the DM doesn't realize how OP you're trying to make the robes, it would be easy to balance your wizard in all areas.

Spells at range, darts when you run out of spells, sword if they get close.

I would have to try to make the build, but i feel like a wizards general lack of physical stats and inability to wear armor would make things difficult. You would have to sacrifice somewhere.

Enchanted robes?
If the DM doesn't realize how OP you're trying to make the robes, it would be easy to balance your wizard in all areas.

Be a wizard with a greatsword and amulet of natural protection +5.

Could be interesting depending on how well you roll stats. Might as well be a battle mage at that point though.

Spells at range, darts when you run out of spells, sword if they get close.

I would have to try to make the build, but i feel like a wizards general lack of physical stats and inability to wear armor would make things difficult. You would have to sacrifice somewhere.

Enchanted robes?
If the DM doesn't realize how OP you're trying to make the robes, it would be easy to balance your wizard in all areas.

Nope. You are the owner of a fake team of real players whose performance in real life games affect the outcome of your games. Dd only exists in your imagjnation, which is fine. Ff is an interactive supplement to real competetion which becomes it's own competition, which is completely different.



Oh and both are super gay.

Or you could be a wizard. Wizards are usually respected.

True, but Wizards don't really start to be "powerful" at least in AD&D, 3.5, and Pathfinder till level 8 or so. That takes quite a while if you are starting around level 1-3.

Be a wizard with a greatsword and amulet of natural protection +5.

Could be interesting depending on how well you roll stats. Might as well be a battle mage at that point though.

Spells at range, darts when you run out of spells, sword if they get close.

I would have to try to make the build, but i feel like a wizards general lack of physical stats and inability to wear armor would make things difficult. You would have to sacrifice somewhere.

Enchanted robes?
If the DM doesn't realize how OP you're trying to make the robes, it would be easy to balance your wizard in all areas.

Loath as I am to say it in light of that telling of it, exactly. I think most dogs are treated a hell of a lot better than sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome, however.