 |
| |
|
|
|
(My comments in blue.)
First of all, I thank you all for your responses. They definitely help encourage me to study this deeper. I had not heard several of the opinions presented before, so that made things more interesting.
Second, I thank you keeping the responses peaceful. I know there are tons of heated debates over this topic. This is one reason that I did not post my thoughts on it when I asked the question, so no one would have something to attack, though I certainly hope that you all would be more peaceful and reasonable than that. And I figured it would help people give more unbiased opinions, since most of you probably don't specifically know my thoughts on this, and that they would be more apt to flesh out their comments.
I was given a reference to a discussion of this on the NT_Christians group. I read that, though it took me about 3 hours I think, and found it very interesting.
I also read the book that Aunt Sherry let me borrow, “The Head Coverings of 1 Corinthians 11”. I found that one to be very interesting, too.
To start us off, the passage. I Corinthians 11:2-16, American Standard Version:
2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:
9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.
13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Now for responses, in random order. I'll not bother with trying to arrange them:
~OK, I've been diverted lately, but your persistence is paying off (well, if you can call a comment from me a payoff ;-). My wife does not wear a covering. The big reasons for me are that the basis of the argument appears cultural, particularly when Paul asks if nature tells us various things about hair that it clearly doesn't. "Nature" here, I think, indicates upbringing (as in "by nature children of wrath"). The other, which he has made some headway on disabusing me of, is that Paul seems to indicate the hair is the covering. One more is that, if "praying or prophesying" is one action, indicating a speaking role, we don't put women in those anyway. And if it means any time she's praying at all, it would, as a practical matter, need to be a 24/7 thing.~
~It's one the standard positions, but from what I understand, the wearing of "head coverings" was customary for women in that time and place. The "head covering" was a custom that indicated the submission of women to men. It symbolized something to people in that context, and thus Paul said it was important for them to adhere to that custom; the underlying principles about God's creation-based order of authority remain very relevant, but the specific application of "head covering for women," is not one to follow. People in our society today don't make any connection between "head coverings" and submission to authority; I would even suggest that many Christians, the head covering doesn't symbolize authority/submission anymore, but rather that it just symbolizes someone's position on controversial passage. :-) Further still relevant to us would be the precedent that we ought to give heed to cultural customs in our respective places and times, and what messages we send by following or not following those customs.
All that said...I have a much more fundamental reason why I don't think "head coverings" must be worn today, a reason that doesn't require appealing to historical context information.
My argument is this:
I don't know how it's possible to follow the "command" about "head coverings," and thus I must conclude that we aren't intended to follow it.
As I read 1 Corinthians 11, I find myself having many questions about what Paul means. Even people who advocate that women should wear some article of clothing on their heads almost universally admit that it is a difficult to understand passage. As I read it, I have to ask: what exactly constitutes an appropriate covering? Unless you interpret the passage to mean hair, then it doesn't say. When exactly are women supposed to wear it? It mentions praying and prophesying - the later doesn't happen anymore so far as I know, and the former is a relatively small part of the time we spend worshiping...and most women who wear coverings wear them far more than just during prayers...
Further, I look back to the Old Testament, to the Law of Moses, and I see how when God wanted his servants to dress in a certain way at certain times, he was capable of giving very specific instructions about what to wear and when to wear it. 1 Corinthians 11 contains no such specificity.
My conclusion is that whatever Paul meant, it must have been something that Corinthians already knew enough about to understand, but that I don't think WE today know enough about to follow. And if we don't know enough to follow it (and yet God's word gives us everything pertaining to life and godliness) then my conclusion is that we aren't intended to have any wear "head coverings" today.
This line of reasoning of mine blends quite well with the aforementioned historical/cultural argument, but is not dependent on that argument.
As a side note, it bothers that I feel people focus so much attention on whether women should put an indeterminate article on their heads at an indeterminate time, and then tend to lose sight of the underlying principles about authority and submission that underlie the head covering.
I hope this helpful to you.~
~Jeff Belknap gave me a GIANT stack of papers, debates and books from both sides—I devoured the material and studied for days and weeks. I read the Strong’s definitions and the arguments on both sides for whether an artificial covering was needed or if the hair was the covering—long hair, short hair, shaved hair, men’s hair, no cut hair….I read it all. My head was spinning….So, I decided that I would pray and consider it without reading any more opinions on the matter. I read the chapter again and again. I pondered it and mediated. This is what stuck in my head and my heart.
King James Bible
I Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
I believe I need to be covered. I believe God supplied the covering. This is why, incidentally, we all have long hair.~
~I was not "raised" with it or in a society that required it, and it is more comfortable for me not to wear a covering. I realize however that this is not a reason to ignore doing a command of God. I do not believe wearing the covering is a command for all women everywhere just as the "by nature" in the passage is not true for all people everywhere.
There are some women in the world whose hair does not grow long. I remember thinking this for many years, and then when our white, South African preacher, Hendrik was preaching about his views of this passage, he brought up this same point. Saying that there were some tribes in Africa where the womens' hair grows naturally as short or shorter than the mens. I will concede however that it is natural for women not to ever want to be seen bald. Slave women during NT times were often shaved to humiliate them and sometimes their hair was sold for profit of the slave owner.
I'm sure if given a choice for myself to go bald or wear some sort of covering, I would wear a covering-- be it a wig or scarf.~
~Here are my thoughts.
I begin my thoughts with vs 3, the order of headship. To me this is the overriding principle in this study, that the head of woman is man, and the head of man is Christ.
I do not limit this to husband, that same Greek word for man is used each time, and the head of all men, husbands or not, is Christ, so I do not think this is limited to husbands.
Then when Paul goes on to discuss the covering and uncovering of the head, it is in relation to this order of headship. Since man is the head of women and the glory and image of God, he is to NOT cover his head.
Now, we know this is during the time of spiritual gifts. Prophesying is specifically mentioned, which is a spiritual gift. I think the praying here also is considered to be a gift because it is linked with the prophesying.
I believe God allowed these women to partake in these spiritual gifts. In I Cor 14:34-35, we see that women are commanded to be silent. I think this means women are to show their submissiveness as the men who are the glory and image of God lead the services. Women are not speak so as to be the focus of the congregation. But I do believe God allowed an exception to this, in the spiritual gifts given to women.
So verse 10 of chp 11, saying that women ought to have a symbol of authority, to me this means a symbol of authority for her to step out of her silence that has been commanded.
So here is my thoughts in a nutshell. Women are not to speak in the service. God made an exception in spiritual gifts. To speak to use this spiritual gift, she must wear the covering as a symbol of the authority that she has to step out of her usual role. Since these spiritual gifts have passed away, so has the need for this symbol of authority. It is still binding that women are to be silent in the church.
The question of vs 16, saying we have no such custom or NAS no other practice, I think this means more as the NAS translates, that this is the practice, women wear the covering in praying and prophesying, and no other practice is acceptable.
The questions of vs 10, because of the angels, refers to Jude 6, where the angels did not stay within their realm of authority. God does not like people to go outside of what He has set for them. Therefore, these women to show it is okay in this exception, wear the covering, so that the same result did not happen to them as did to the angels in Jude 6.
I have studied on this a lot and these ideas are the ones that to me answer the questions and make this passage a cohesive whole. But I do see how other can see this different and I like I said am interested in hearing these ideas to better learn how to discern this passage.~
~I'm not sure about it, myself. The argument that it was a cultural issue seems a good one. It says that wearing a covering in public assemblies was a tradition of their society, and even though all are equal in Christ women shouldn't buck the tradition and thus appear rebellious. Still, Paul seems so adamant about wearing the covering that I have to wonder whether it was just an issue of tradition.
I'll say this, though, and I don't mean any offense, but if a woman is going to wear a covering, she ought to make sure that the covering is sufficient to actually cover her head.~
~Just keep in mind that what I write are my opinions- developed after long study and reading the passages as best I can.
It's pretty basic English. Just take a sec to push everything that other people have told you, and read it word for word, and trust that this is a divine inspired book, written with reasons that we cannot understand, our responsibilities lay not with understanding, but obedience. There's a difference.
Read it.
"5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while prophesying or praying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover hear head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For man ought not to have his head covered, since he is in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For woman man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for man's sake.
10 Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
A small excerpt.
Honestly, I think Paul is telling us that we, men, should be ashamed if we wore a hat if we prayed- and are we not? You can meet anywhere, and out of respect and reverence we take off our hats when we pray. That's not a foreign concept.
So why don't women show reverence by covering their heads? We're told that they'd be ashamed if they were bald, and truly, typically, there are not many women we see walking around bald.
Paul tells us that when they don't wear a head covering when they are praying, it is a shameful thing, and they are, in essence, bald, disgraced.
Now, ladies will call me a sexist for my next comments, I don't really care. It's what the pages of the scriptures say. Argue with God if you like.
Woman are not on the same playing field as men. Does that mean they are inferior? weaker? Never! There are attributes that women seem have that I wish I could attain. Gentleness, compassion, care, to name a few. However, woman was created for man, because God saw that man needed a helpmeet- someone to aid him. Things were not good until such a helpmeet was given. He didn't create man to help woman, but the other way around.
Paul states in vs11 that man is not independent of woman, and the same vice versa. We need each other, couldn't get along without each other.
But Man was created first, in the image and glory of God- so we show reverence and submission by UNCOVERING our heads.
and then created was woman- for the help and glory of man- who ought to show reverence and submission by COVERING their heads.
There's a totem pole of order- God, Man, Woman, in a chain authority.
There's a difference that needs to be noted, and with this whole gender equality, that line is getting awfully blurred. Again, I'm not trying to tread on women, I love em dearly. But a lot of women I meet won't listen to this sort of thing, simply because it puts them in place of submission- which goes against the whole American spirit of equality, and man, they can get downright angry and nasty. Hell hath no fury...
Anywho, those are my thoughts. I for one, am incredibly impressed with a woman willing to wear a head covering, and have an infinite amount of respect for her. Someone like that is willing to show that they are different, that they are doing their best to follow the good word, regardless if other women look down on her or not.~
And now, for my thoughts.
I'll take this verse by verse, and try to give answer to any view points that I can think of, though I'm sure I will miss some.
2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
* These are traditions that Paul delivered to them. Not ones from the culture around them.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
* This is the foundation on which the argument is built. It is a solid, unchanging, God-given principal Even if it was a cultural tradition or some such thing, this is the foundation Paul is building upon. Since this foundation still stands today, and whether feminists and others reject it or not, his argument does as well.
*Also, this has to be man and woman. It doesn't make sense if you tried to say it's husband and wife, because if such were the case, does that mean that unmarried men and women have no head? Woman's head is man, and man's is Christ.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
*This is not a passage applying to women only. Men are given commands just as women are. Men are NOT to have their head covered when praying or prophesying. I can't say for certain whether the head being talked about is literal (i.e. His physical head), or metaphorical (i.e. Christ, as from the previous verse.). It could be both. Either way, to not do it is to dishonor yourself, and/or Christ.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
*For the same reasons that men are not to cover their heads, women ARE to do so. By foregoing this command, they dishonor themselves, and/or their head, man.
*As for the assertion that, because it says praying or prophesying, we are no longer subject to this command, since the spiritual gifts, such as prophesy, have been done away with. The flaw I see with this line of reasoning is that prayer is still effective. The “or” that is used does not tie it to prophesy in the sense that it was an inspired spiritual gift. It is a separator. While doing one or the other. I see no indication whatsoever that this is only talking about inspired prayers.
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
*This verse causes difficulties with thinking that long hair is the covering being discussed. Here is a quote from one of the people who were talking about it in the NT_Christians group:
“Secondly, there are challenges in the context itself to the hair being the covering under consideration in the first part of the chapter. the biggest issue comes in verse 6. "If a woman does not cover her head, let her ALSO have her hair cut off" (NASB) (I believe "be shorn" is the NKJ, and KJV). Having her hair cut off is different than not being covered. However, if the hair is the covering, then not being covered would be the same thing as having her hair cut off.
“Some people try to put more lengths of hair in the passage than are in there. There is long hair, shorn hair (short hair) and shaved. for the hair to be the covering, there has to be long hair, short hair, shorn hair (some length between short and shaved) and shaved. Why? Because Paul says if she is not covered (ie, has short hair, rather than the long hair that is "covered), let her also have her hair cut off (or shorn). Verse 6 obviously distinguishes between "cut off" and "shaved". Cut off means short hair, shaved means gone.
“Let me try to clarify what I mean with this. If the hair is the covering, then long hair=covered, and short hair or no hair=uncovered. So, if we substitute those words into the passage, we see the problem:
“'If a woman has short hair], let her also have her hair [cut short], but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair [cut short] or her head shaved, let her [have long hair].'
“You see, the problem is in the first part of the verse, where you have the exact same thing! Some will say that if she has short hair, then she might as well cut it shorter. But, as I said before, that position needs another length of hair in the passage that is not there.”
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
*Another reason that men should not wear a covering, and women should.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:
9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
*These two verses give yet another.
10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
*The head covering is to show that she knows her place. I'm not sure what the “because of the angels” phrase is referring to. The most logical explanation I've heard is it is referring to Jude 6: “And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Meaning that she should think of what happened to the angels when they follow what they were supposed to do.
11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.
*Just because man is given the leadership position does not mean that he can do what even he wants, and can make women bow to his whims. 1Peter 3:7 “Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.” Men and women need one another.
13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?
*As he did in I Corinthians 10:15, Paul tells them to judge for themselves, given the evidence Paul has presented. He then asks a rhetorical question. Given all the evidence he's given, and will give, the answer seems to me to be obvious. No.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
*Paul now appeals to nature. True, some women's hair only grows to a relatively short length. And some men's can grow quite long. But the prevailing custom, the whole world over, is that women have long hair, and men keep their hair shorter. A quote from Paul K. Williams, in the book “The Head Coverings of 1 Corinthians 11”:
“Albert Barnes writes: 'The word nature (phusis) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress.... Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place... refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right; a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations, showing what that sense is. No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations has prompted to the same course.'” (Page 19)
*Romans 12:12-16 ~ For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
*This verse is also used to say that a woman's long hair is the only covering needed. One detriment to this thought is the word used in this verse that is translated as “Covering” is different from the word translated as covering in the every instance in the earlier verses. Another quote from the NT_Christians discussion:
“The logic in that reading is disputable when (a) vv. 14-15 represent an entirely different and thoroughly secondary type of argument, entirely subordinate to the previous discussion and (b) the Greek word for covering cannot be much more different than the word used throughout vv. 3-13.
“Peribolaion, used in 1 Cor. 11:15, is the same word used to describe what the lilies of the field are "clothed" in. "Clothed" is far better than "covered" in context...peribolaion indicates much more of a "covering" than akatakalupto could.”
*And another from the same person, though a little later:
“If it gives you any indication of what the term means, peribolaion is used in Matthew 6 to describe how Solomon was "arrayed", and is constantly used to denote the putting on of a full garment. It means, literally, "to wrap around," or "the wrapped around thing," and is quite different from the word for veiling in vv. 3-13.”
*Matthew 6:28-30 ~ “And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?”
16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
*The most logical reasonings of what this verse is meaning are either they had not such custom of being contentious, or no such custom as what the Corinthians were doing, which Paul was correcting.
*He is not saying that, if someone is contentious, they have not such custom of the women covering their heads, and the men not. For since when did God give a command, and then say that if you don't like it, you don't have to follow it?
It was not a cultural custom that Paul was telling the Corinthians to follow. Historical evidence points out that it was different, and sometimes the complete opposite of common customs of the Romans, Greeks, and Jews. Here is a website, by a member of the church, that someone in the NT_Christians group brought forth: http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/1cor/headwear.htm.
It was also not something for the Corinthians only. Verses such as I Corinthians 11:16, and I Corinthians 4:17 show such. I Corinthians 4:17 ~ “For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church.” If it were to only Corinthian, why do we accept the later half of I Corinthians 11? Or the rest of the book?
It does not seem to be something only for inspired men and women either, and there is nothing that says that inspired women wearing a covering were aloud to speak when the church was gathered together for worship. There is no indication of such in the passage. I Corinthians 14:23 ~ "If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad?" I Corinthian 14:33b-35 ~ “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” It says nothing about women “not wearing a covering” are to be silent. There are not qualifiers for which women. Women. Period.
Quote from the book by Mr. Williams, from a transcript in his book of a sermon by David W. Bercot:
“The interesting thing I noticed in reading Tertullian's essay or tract on the subject of “veiling” was that there was no issue in the churches of his day on what 1 Cor. 11 meant. The only issue that was whether Paul's words applied to all mature females, or whether it applied only to married women. So that was what he was discussing in his work.” (Page 50)
Tertullian wrote around 200 a.d. and was in Carthage, in North Africa. Another quote from that sermon, talking about I Corinthians 11:5, and quoting parts of the Ante-Nicene Fathers:
“Let me read you some other passages from the early Christians to make it clear that this was not about long hair. Tertullian, once again this is from Vol. 4 pages 27-29, and page 33, says, “It behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time they have passed the turning point of their age. This observation is required by truth. Therefore no one can impose any condition on it. No space of time, no influence of persons, and no privilege of regions.” Interestingly now he is saying, “No, this isn't cutural. It doesn't have to do with this part of the world, this century. It is true for all times.” “Throughout Greece and certain of its barbaric provinces the majority of churches keep their virgins covered.” Again, the only issue he is arguing, or the only two issues, are how long the veil should be and whether it applies to virgins or only to married women.” (Pages 61-62)
Another quote from the same place:
“Tertullian goes on to say, “We ought to look at the churches where the apostles taught and see what those churches do.” They could follow the example of the apostles, they could hear Paul further explain what he meant and to institute a practice there. In fact he says, “Let's go and look at the church in Corinth, whom Paul wrote to.” If you want to know what Paul meant, why not go and see what the church in Corinth does? So he says this, “Likewise the Corinthians themselves understood in this manner,” meaning they understood him to be talking about all females, virgins and married. He says, “In fact, at this very day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approved.” That last quote can be found on page 33 of volume 4.” (Page 62)
Isn't it interesting how many differing views there are against women wearing of head coverings, and yet so few for?
I have heard people complain about the lace-like coverings that some women wear. I see nothing in this passage that says that they don't count. This is essentially arguing about the thread-count of the cloth used for a covering. Now if it's a little tiny thing, such as a couple inches across, or a head band, I don't think that counts. Those only cover a little spot, not the whole head. It does not have to cover the face. Matthew 6:17 ~ “But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face;...” shows that there is a distinction.
Since this is a symbol, I don't know that it is necessary to cover or uncover your head when making a private prayer. I don't wear hats often, but when it is with a group, I try to remember to take my hat off when praying.
One more thing. This seems very much to me, a direct command from God, with an everlasting principle for its foundation. It is not a temporary command.
James 2:10 ~ “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.”
I harbor a great deal of respect for those that try to follow this passage. Especially women since it seems much more common for them not be following it. Though, I don't know how many men are following this because of what the passage actually says, instead of just happening to do it. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and.....
.....Everyone else, because I don't have the time to spend linking everyone, nor much inclination to do so. And not everyone is on here, so that doesn't help either...
...I wish a most lovely, enjoyable, productive, and spiritually bolstering New Year!
P.S. I believe that our annual singing is going to be the first Saturday in February this year. We'd be overjoyed to have you come. And don't worry about giving us too much joy. We like our cup to be overflowing. So come. Please.
P.P.S. An immense post is eminent. You have been warned. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
Those links to the midis weren't working for some people, so here's another site, that will hopefully work. And I'll just link it so that you can get to midis from all the songs in the sheet music book, excluding the Decisive Battle.
http://www.squareenixmusic.com/albums/f/ff10pc.shtml |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, actually, we are home, and have been for some 7+ hours.
Monday: Celebrated Daddoo's birthday (We made a Black Forest Cheesecake. Which also turned out to be a horrible mess. But it tasted good.). Got to chat with Becca for a good while, which was lovely and very rejuvenating for my spirits. And we opened some of our Christmas presents, the ones from our immediate family, so that we wouldn't have to take them on the trip. Especially with Andrew's packaging some things in excessively large boxes, so that it would be harder to guess what they were by size and weight. :P Got some very fun stuff, including an absurd Nerf machine gun (It came with two chains of 25 darts, and 50 extra darts to go with it. Plus, it can be used manually, or by battery powered, which can fire up to 3 darts per second. And it is so big, and heavy (Especially with the 6 D batteries in it.) that it comes with a tripod. Andrew said he couldn't resist, since it came with so many darts, and his Nerf gun can fire them too. And I guess because he and Zach both have good guns. :P); Zach got a guitar stand; Age of Empires III, and the expansion; some electric scissors (Mother gave them to us, because she figured we'd get more use out of them than Dad would. And she's probably right. Reasonable use, however... Maybe not so much. We've been playing with them, doing things like cutting the tape on our presents with them. She actually gave them to us early, when we were cutting a box up to package gifts to send, but she didn't realize that they needed 12 hours to charge, so we couldn't use them to help cut the box. Plus, the box was so thick that they were having trouble cutting it. =P); a Peter, Paul, and Mary sheet music book, with 70 songs, and guitar tabs, piano music, and vocals (But, even with 70 songs, it doesn't even have Lemon Tree. But we're going to been having fun with it. =D); and a Final Fantasy X Piano Collections sheet music book (For those of you that don't know, the Piano Collections sheet music are piano arrangements for songs from the Final Fantasy games, for master pianists. Some are only perhaps intermediate level, such as At Zanarkand, but some sound and look to be extremely difficult, such as Final Battle. There's also one called Decisive Battle which is exactly the same as Final Battle, except it has an additional section.
*Cue Maniacal Calvin Expression*
*Or how about this*
Yes, that is me. I *did* do four hats, by wearing Blanco's (which has an elastic strap) under my chip, but it didn't turn out as well. :P
Yes, I am going to try learning Decisive Battle, but it really wouldn't surprise me if I take a year to get any good at it. =P
There were a couple other things we got, too.
Tuesday: We were quite busy most of the day packing and baking and such. We left a little while after 4, and probably arrived about 8. Almost everyone else was already there. We got bombarded with black balloons and shouts of "Happy Birthday!" when we walked in the door, since the diminutive feminine cousinlings did not understand that we were not the ones to be bombarded. They gathered the balloons up real quick and then did it again when they were supposed to, i.e. when Dad walked in. We ended up playing with the balloons a whole lot over our stay. We switched our cousin's Wii out for our own, since we have much better save files for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and the other games we brought. We showed them Boom Blox, and I think we may have played Crazy Eights.
Wednesday: Spent most of the day playing games, such as Crazy Eights, Contract Rummy, Blockus (Original and Trigon), Upwords, Scrabble, and Canasta. When we played Canasta, were ended up having two tables of 6 players playing at once, since playing all together would take a really long time, for an already long game. At the table I was at, we ended up playing 5 or 6 hands. The first hand, Uncle Glenn and Eric got almost 3000 points, but they started struggling to meld most of the rest of the game. Uncle Steve and I were in last most of the game, and Andrew and Jeremy were in the middle. I gained a new nickname because of the last 3 hands. All three hands, I was dealt 2 jokers, thus I was designated "The Joker Magnet". Uncle Steve kept getting tons of black 3's. The second to last hand, Uncle Steve and I managed to create an almighty milking machine, since the only books we didn't have were aces and black 3's. Plus, no one else managed to meld. I think we went from last to 500 points from winning in that hand. Then, it was so fun, we began doing it all over again the next hand, since I got to meld first thing. Didn't do as much damage to them, since they both managed to meld, but we won, and had great fun. =) The Twin did a fairly simple decoration on the 16x16 cake that we made before we left, and we put 50 sparkling candles in it, and sang Happy Birthday to Dad again (Which makes the third time that we did.) That evening, we all went to a little bitty church (I think it said that the attendance for the last Sunday was 8, or 7 something around there. We brought close to 30 people, most of which are good and powerful singers.) and we had a singing. I didn't know a couple of the songs we sung. :) And we watched Scrooge that night.
Thursday: People who were there: Grandma, Grandpa, Uncle Darrell , Aunt Sherry, Eric, Wesley, Jeremy, Sam, Uncle Steve, Aunt Janine, Alex, Sarah, Jason, Jacqueline, Uncle Glenn, Aunt Phoebe, Kristine, Kimberly, Kourtney, Uncle Eddie, Aunt Cyndy, Casey, Katie, Kylee, Dad, Mom, Andrew, the Twin, Maddie (Alex's girlfriend), and Courtney (Sarah's blood sister), and myself.
We started opening presents about 10 in the morning, I think. We tried having each family get little one dollar gifts for everyone not in their immediate family. And thus, we got some fairly strange stuff. A bunch of it was useful though, such as we got a spiffy books of the Bible tie, a 16ft measuring tape, couple mixing bowls, a couple flower nails, and a turntable to use to help decorate cakes (Part of the reason for that one, Uncle Darell said, was because of the warning label on it. It's technically a fondue turntable, and thus it has some funny warnings considering what we'll be using it for.), among a few other things. Some of the more entertaining ones we gave were a level for Jeremy ("To keep him level headed."), and an automatic mechanical (As you jiggle it, the lead gets shoved out.) pencil for Wesley ("Because we all know how hard it is to go: *click*"). Mother forgot that we were planning to put those comments in before she wrapped them, but I did get to tell Wesley his. Wesley found that entertaining, but I think he found the fact that the plastic thing protecting the pencil was designed to hold another pencil and a case of spare lead, and yet only had the one pencil a bit more humorous. =)
We ate a wonderfully, tasty dinner of turkey, gravy, mashed potatoes, green beans, spinach souffle, other things, and rolls. And not just any old rolls, Aunt Cyndy's homemade rolls. Which are probably about the best rolls that I've ever had. I think I only had 4.... YUUUUM!
We played a bunch of games, including Three Dragons Ante, Blockus, Scrabble, Dance Dance Revolution (I didn't play that. Partially because I don't think I'd be very good, and I just don't have much interest in that sort of game.), Rummikub(I never did play that either, nothing that I would mind necessarily. I just never did.), and other card games mentioned before. We watched the first half of Fiddler on the Roof, and The Dark Knight that evening.
Friday: We had a white Christmas. However the next day, was no longer white. It was somewhere in the 60's most of the day. I saw 61 close to 1 p.m., and saw it was 61 a bit after 11 p.m. Most of the snow was gone by the time we woke up.
We played a bunch of Smash Bros. that morning, and I think we played Greed. After lunch, we went walking along a 4 mile path around a lake (Which a group had done that morning. I think Uncle Darrell and Aunt Sherry went both times.), which was lovely. At one point, Grandpa called for the army of boys (Sam was the youngest boy there, and he's 16, or close to it.). Jason was trying to get out, but with all the snow that had melted, the ground was sodden, and he was getting utterly not traction, so while he tried to drive the car, 4 or 5 of us pushed, and eventually managed to get him out, without having to get Grandpa to use his 4-wheel drive truck to tow him out. We did end up leaving a couple of muddy trenches about an inch or two deep in the lawn though. We played some Mario Kart Wii, Mario Strikers Charged, watched the second half of Fiddler on the Roof, and part of Howl's Moving Castle, and we played Boom Blox that night. We had several heavy storms over night, and a tornado watch was in effect from about 11 until at least 5 in the morning.
Saturday: I didn't get much sleep last night, because of the storms. The temperature had cooled to about freezing, and it was raining, sometimes only sprinkling, sometimes pouring. I think our front-wheel drive van had about the most trouble getting out, but we managed to help Dad get it out pretty easily. We finished packing, and left a little after 9, and arrived at home a bit after 12:30.
Overall, a very, very fun vacation. 'Twas great to have almost the entire family together (Just missing Nathan, Savannah, Melanie, and Josh.).
Aunt Sherry brought a book on head coverings for me to borrow. So, I'll try to finish it within a couple days, and hopefully I'll be able to compile that post with the answers to my question, and I'll be able to type up my thoughts on it, especially in light of what I've learned in my studies on it.
We got some great gifts. 'Most all of them we will use, and several, enjoy very much. But, personally, I count those such as the Capeharts gave as among my favorites. What did they give, you may ask? One of the simplest things to give. Simple, appreciative complements and thank you's. They make the literal hours worth of time used in making things well worth it.
Thank you for your wishes of having a "Merry Christmas", or whatever variation you happened to utilize. I hope you all had as great of a time as I did. =) |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
Off to the grandparent's for Christmas, to be back on Saturday.
Merry Christmas to all!
p.s. Yes, I'm feeling better. Ta ta! |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
