finalement!

praise God from whom all Bibles flow!

last weekend, i was checking out Bibles at mitchell's and i ended up buying a cheap print $2 NKJV Bible for the purposes of my inductive study assignment. they had a promo going where i could come back the week after with my receipt and get one regular priced item at 30% off, so i figured it'd be a good time to get myself a(nother) decent Bible. so i finally, finally, finally bought myself a Bible to replace the blue NIV one i "misplaced" months ago... took long enough! i'm not letting this one out of my sight :P same compact size as my old one, except it's ESV and nutmeg in colour. i'm very pleased with it... decent price (on sale for $23) and it's an "essentially literal" translation... one of the newer ones of its kind to come out but apparently up there with NASB and NRSV... i'm very pleased with it :) i also bought myself a simple black NASB Bible for the mere sake of owning a copy of this wonderful, wonderful translation (elisabeth elliot uses it and i just absolutely look up to her, not to mention my OT prof had recommended this version along with ESV for serious study whereas NIV should be read for more devotional purposes) and also, i'd been wanting a Bible that i can highlight and underline and mark and essentially 'deface' without feeling too guilty about it. this one i bought at 30% off, which came to about $15... not bad. one of the first Bibles i actually picked up was a navy blue NIV compact Bible similar to the one i used to own, but that little thing cost $50! i'm still hoping to find mine one day. what else... pastor andrew says there's a sign-up for students to receive a free TNIV Bible, so i'll definitely be doing that. clarice says it's like the NIV but gender inclusive... maybe i won't need an NIV replacement then. and i'd still like to own a copy of the NRSV (my NT prof prefers this version) but i know i won't find it at mitchell's... they had like, one !

oh, and stan, just for you, a friend in hebrew class today pointed out that sin is a feminine noun. hope that smoothes out your feathers a little ;) but not too much now, cuz my response to him was: "so is wisdom..." it never really ends, does it? :P

freebies!

you all know i love books, right? a couple of them have come into my possession over the last few days. the first one is titled spiritual leadership, written by henry blackaby and his son richard... one of several door prizes on saturday when he spoke at tyndale. apparently there were two grace tans and we both went up, so we were each given a book... but i have a feeling it was *my* form that was actually drawn :P in all honesty, i was eyeing the tyndale hoodie or zip-up... but hey, i never win anything so i'm thankful for the book! plus my mom got him to sign it too... and he gave an awesome message that morning (the best of three messages i heard him give).

the second book i received just this afternoon... a hebrew OT bible! thank you, canadian bible society! so now i've got an actual copy of the tanakh in my hands... feels great :) while i'm on the subject of hebrew, might as well share some interesting things from today's OT class. you know how everyone blames eve for the fall? WELL... apparently, when the serpent was tempting eve (chapter 3 of genesis), the hebrew shows usage of second person plural pronouns. the king james version translates this plurality by using 'ye' instead of 'thou'... of course, with the modern versions we have today, the translation uses 'you' which the reader can translate as either singular or plural. in the case of the serpent's address, the pronouns are meant to be plural but i bet you all thought it was singular and he was addressing eve alone...... well guess what guys, the serpent was talking to adam as well. yah, eve may have taken the first bite, but stupidity is relative here (as in, stupid is as stupid does), and anyway, in eve's defense, when God gave adam the direct command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:17), eve wasn't even formed yet. really, adam should've known better. tsk tsk. and on top of that, now we know where (or shall i say who) finger-pointing originated from!

btw, xy's, you know i'm just ruffling your feathers... so relax. have an apple or somethin ;)

resistance

so my prof tells me that i don't smile enough... that i look too serious in class.

i dunno what to do now. concentrate less? smile more??

---

time and i... we've been enemies for as long as i can remember. i don't like time and time doesn't like me. i don't submit to time and time doesn't submit to me. time always screws me over and i always try to screw time over but it never works. right now, time and i are battling head to head...

people tell me all time (hah! time!) not to fight with time but to work with time. my response? tell that to time! why can't time work with me? why must time resist me all the-- ah, i won't say it!

---

my current perspective on women of strength is this: any woman can muster up the strength and courage to defy, but it takes a special woman to submit. (notice i purposely didn't specify a direct object... ) not everyone will see it this way, but i believe that submission is not a sign of weakness; instead, it is an indication of true strength... one that doesn't mask pride, but obedience.

i admire these truly strong women. i dunno how they do it.

---

for when i am weak, then i am strong. for when i am weak, then i am strong.

His grace is sufficient. His grace is sufficient. His grace is sufficient.

growing pains

2 Corinthians 12:9-10 (NKJV)

And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

---

2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

enya

i really really miss my enya cd :(

it's been missing for ages, probably still in my house somewhere but i don't think i'll ever find it. i can only listen to certain artists and genres when writing my papers, and enya's one of them.

i could really use her music right now...

*sigh*

raw or refined?

on a scale from raw to refined,
where do you think you lie?
to what end do you strive for?
or do you believe in balance and middle-ground?
perhaps you prefer neither designation?
are the two qualities mutually exclusive?
do you perceive one to be better than the other, or is it all relative?
which of the two best defines "pure" to you?
which of the two best defines you?

---

the source of inspiration for this post: jennie put raw sugar instead of refined sugar in my coffee the other day.

creation tidbit

i'm finding it really helpful to be taking hebrew and old testament at the same time. my most recent connection had to do with the creation account... apparently, though the english translates genesis 1:1 to "in the beginning," the hebrew has no definite article attached to 'beginning' and so the more literal translation would be "in a beginning"...... this makes a huge difference to me! the hebrew allows for an indefinite period of time to be assigned to 'beginning'... on top of that, the counting of 'days' is also indefinite according to hebrew grammar, so instead of "the first day" it should actually be "a first day," etc... and just when i'd had enough, the possibility of 'subordinate clause' was thrown in my face as well... as in, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" could possibly be translated as "in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..." my goodness, all of this allows for stuff like gap theory or pre-creation chaos theory... and these theories have always bothered me greatly. i'm gonna have to do more research on this... and may God grant me wisdom along the way.

kim phuc

june 8, 1972 - kim phuc, age 9, naked with napalm burns, victim of napalm bombing of trangbang during the vietnam war

during chapel today, i was privileged to hear kim phuc give her testimony. her story was very moving... one thing she said that stuck in my mind was this: the weapon of forgiveness is more powerful than any weapon of war. how true indeed... God has done such amazing things in her life. watching that documentary clip the day her village got bombed... oh man... i dunno why, but everything just makes me wanna cry these days. so many things going on around the world... even locally... enough to break my heart into a million pieces.

thanksgiving perspective

so here i am at my desk, working on my late paper and listening to some music in the background... 94.1, 91.1, 98.1 and of course my ccm and mandarin cds. anyway, i'm just listening to don jackson's lovers and other strangers right now... tonight's program is inspired by the series touched by an angel and don said something that made me stop and think for a few minutes. so let me ask you guys:

if you could re-live one day in the past, how would you do it?

my mind, by default, thought of the days i would've wanted to do over differently... anyone else's mind do the same? don presented a different perspective. all the things of our past, both good and bad, mold us into who we are today, and we are all the wiser for it. if there's anything we ought to think of changing, it shouldn't be the past, but the PRESENT... so going back to the question, wouldn't it be nice to instead re-live one day in our past that has left such a wonderful impression on our hearts and minds that we wouldn't want to change a thing about it?

humbee update

someone in my house is toying with me..........

i came home today and found humbee on top of some clean laundry. when i asked my mom about it, she said she found humbee in the 'green' pile to be washed. (fyi, humbee is half yellow-orange, half purple.) i personally sorted out the laundry myself, and humbee was NOT in any of the piles as of last night. now, i was very very public about my search for humbee... looked everywhere, asked everyone... my whole house knew i was upset that she was missing. so someone must've secretly sneaked her into the laundry. the question is: WHO??? there are 11 of us plus a baby... everyone is suspect.

there was this one time i couldn't find my white puma sneakers. i ransacked the house and asked everyone about it, but no one knew where they were... one day, a few months later, i opened the shoe closet and there it was sitting on the top rack. no one admitted to putting them there.

and i know some of u are thinking this, but NO, i'm not hallucinating!!!

p.s. i'm really glad i didn't lose humbee, and i guess having her back is all that matters :)

MBTI update

(i should be working on my paper!)

i have an update re: my myers-briggs beef from last entry. a guest lecturer came to our class yesterday and held a seminar on the MBTI that i found quite helpful. i was able to clarify the instructions with him... so basically, when it asks for what appeals to me or what i prefer, i'm supposed to interpret that as my natural tendency for things versus what i'm striving for. honestly, i felt quite dumb after asking :P i thought maybe other people were faced with the same dilemma of conflicting answers, but no one else spoke up about it. i guess it's relatively clear to everyone... good grief, why can't i just take things at face value for a change?! if only my brain would acknowledge that trick questions are the exception and not the rule, my life would be less stressful.

anyway, i've been like this for as long as i know. i distinctly remember a history test i wrote in grade 1. it was multiple choice, and i had to identify the president of the philippines. i narrowed it down to two choices: ronald reagan and corazon c. aquino. i knew that ronald reagan was a president, but not of the philippines... i also knew that our current president's name was cory aquino. but are cory aquino and corazon c. aquino the same person? am i being tricked into choosing corazon c. aquino because it so closely resembles the name of the president i know? what if corazon c. aquino was indeed a real person, but not the president of the philippines? maybe a parent, a relative? someone else with high reputation or political standing? in the end, i could not be sure of who corazon c. aquino was. but i WAS sure that ronald reagan was president. of the united states, yes... but he was a president, so i got at least half the answer right, which had more certainty than i could give this corazon c. aquino person. if there was even such a person. yes... maybe the teacher made up that name and put it in the test to throw us 6-year-olds off. well, *I* won't be falling for that one. and so i chose ronald reagan.

when we got our tests back, apparently corazon c. aquino and cory aquino were the same person after all. WHO WOULDA THUNK IT... but i got a bonus mark for choosing ronald reagan anyway. at first, i thought it was cuz she accepted my answer as being equally legit. but then, in hindsight, i think i must've been the ONLY one in the class to get the question wrong... she probably thought i chose ronald reagan by mistake when i really meant to choose corazon c. aquino (cuz how could i possibly NOT know who our president was??), and she was just willing to overlook the error.

anyway... back to the myers-briggs test. i mean, instrument. inventory. whatever. before i get into my results, here are the 8 possibilities and their general descriptions:

Extraversion -- People who prefer Extraversion tend to focus on the outer world of people and things.
Intraversion -- People who prefer Intraversion tend to focus on the inner world of ideas and impressions.

Sensing -- People who prefer Sensing tend to focus on the present and on concrete information gained from their senses.
iNtuition -- People who prefer Intuition tend to focus on the future, with a view toward patterns and possibilities.

Thinking -- People who prefer Thinking tend to base their decisions primarily on logic and on objective analysis of cause and effect.
Feeling -- People who prefer Feeling tend to base their decisions primarily on values and on subjective evaluation of person-centred concerns.

Judging -- People who prefer Judging tend to like a planned and organized approach to life and prefer to have things settled.
Perceiving -- People who prefer Perceiving tend to like a flexible and spontaneous approach to life and prefer to keep their options open.

so the first time i took the test, i got INFJ. the first two came as no surprise, but i wasn't sure what to make of F and J. between thinking and feeling, i've always believed myself to be split right down the middle. actually, the results were quite accurate... i got a tie between the two. but in the case of a tie, i'm supposed to choose F. now the J i had a real problem with, cuz i was apparently a "clear" judger (versus being only a "slight" introvert and feeler with "moderate" intuition). i'm certainly not a "clear" judger! this is where the whole tendency/preference issue kicks in. i try to be more organized and timely, i really do... i'm even keeping an agenda and making to-do lists and everything... but those of you who've known me a while know that i'm not naturally like this :P it's extremely draining to keep up a J lifestyle!

during the seminar, we did a short test to determine a self-estimated hypothesis of our indicator types, and i got INTP. i tried to be objective, but i can't overrule the fact that i questioned my initial F and J designation to begin with... anyway, i re-wrote the full test and got INTP as well. hopefully i was honest and not overly biased in my choices. out of the 93 questions, i answered 21 of them differently. i ended up being a more "moderate" introvert, which makes sense cuz i'm wanting and trying to be more extroverted and so of course i swung that direction on the first test. i have a "clear" preference for intuition instead of "moderate" as my initial result... dunno what swayed me for that one. i ended up with a thinking (T) designation this time around, but the results were still close... instead of a tie-breaker, thinking won over feeling 13-11. and i only came out to be a "slight" perceiver (P), but a perceiver nonetheless.

the moral of this story?

i dunno, but i'm gonna grab myself something to eat.

"more pressing than matters of the mind are matters of the stomach."

or "the stomach grumbles louder than the mind." --grace tan

^_^