| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 02/05/2007 : 16:12:57
|
The Number 23
This film could turn out to be really corny, but I hope it doesn't... because this is my lucky number. (I've even won over �2,000 on the Lottery with this number - not exactly a fortune, but plenty for an eighteen-year-old living in the foothills of Everest!) It was such a surprise when the trailer came up. Fingers crossed... |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/24/2007 22:18:00 |
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 16:25:57
|
I assume this is about basketball legend Michael Jordan - forever #23.
 |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 16:27:40
|
If it were about a sportsman, it would have to be Beckham anyway.  |
|
|
|
mampers11 
"Lazy Lebowski Loses Rug"
|
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 18:04:35
|
For Beckham, it would be number 7. It is his lucky number. Arsenal's lucky number is number 14, for he is a French God. Monsieur Henry
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 09:08:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by mampers7
For Beckham, it would be number 7. It is his lucky number.
7 is is his Manchester Utd. and England number; 23 is his Real Madrid number. My point wasn't that 23 is Beckham's main number but that Beckham is 23's main person. (This is of course a subjective point, but this is the one that I was making.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/06/2007 10:25:15 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 12:04:26
|
I suppose you could say both Jordan and Beckham are prime candidates. 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 12:17:32
|
| I only mentioned it because I was quite glad when Beckham took 23; it doesn't affect me what number Jordan was. However, I assume that Becks will take 7 for L.A. Galaxy, so people will even more associate him with that again. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/06/2007 12:18:47 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 12:17:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I suppose you could say both Jordan and Beckham are prime candidates.
Two reactions to this:
1. ARGH! 'prime' ARGH!
2. What? To be portrayed by Jim Carrey on screen?
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 15:46:32
|
| When Beckham couldn't wear 7 because the Real Madrid captain already had 7, he chose 23 - why because of Michael Jordan - his 23 is simply an homage to MJ, thus 23 remains Michael Jordan. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 15:52:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
he chose 23 - why because of Michael Jordan - his 23 is simply an homage to MJ, thus 23 remains Michael Jordan.
Thanks for the info. That's a shame. I'll just have to rely on this film being good then. (Probably a long shot.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/06/2007 16:31:57 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:27:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I suppose you could say both Jordan and Beckham are prime candidates.
Two reactions to this:
1. ARGH! 'prime' ARGH!
2. What? To be portrayed by Jim Carrey on screen?
Your first reaction was the desired one. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:48:01
|
A worrying thing (i.e. with regard to the film's quality) from the trailer is this example of what to do with the number 23.
"2/3 = .666 = the number of the devil"
Well, yes - if one arbitrarily rounds off to three decimal places, rounds down instead of to the nearest figure and then multiplies by 1,000. Oh, and ignores the fact that 666 is only "the number of the beast" and there is no clear evidence that this refers to the devil at all.  |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 16:25:43
|
| Not only that, it's not even firmly established that "the number of the beast" is indeed 666. Some of the ancient Greek manuscripts - the oldest surviving text of both the Old and New Testaments, from which all later translations are derived from - identify it as "616." |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 16:38:07
|
| Ah, interesting. I didn't know that part. They didn't splash out too much on the old research then. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 19:07:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ah, interesting. I didn't know that part. They didn't splash out too much on the old research then.
The NSV Bible - the most accurate version, because they went back to those ancient manuscripts to do it, unlike all the other versions which are essentionlly translations of translations (it's like playing "telephone") - mentions this ambiguity in the footnotes. Anyone who's studied the Bible in the last two decades probably would have used the NSV version (or the Revised NSV), assuming they were studying it in an academic, secular environment. Theological schools probably still use older translations, especially the KJV, which ironically is probably the most inaccurate translation of them all. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 08:54:44
|
| Yep, I've always thought it completely bizarre that most people don't use the best translation available. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The Number 23 (contains spoilers)
