How ignorant are white marines?

Do black marines score higher in exams per se versus white marines?

Just curious which branch has the highest average IQ overall?

NAVY?

I’d say the average marine has a double digit IQ with the ones I met and most black marines stay in longer and seem to be better marines so I’m guessing their smarter. Air force has the highest average iq.

2. In past, when Monarchs of different countries married, that more or less meant also union of the Crowns; while each of them remained Sovereign of his/her separate country, their Heir Apparent eventually inherited both Kingdoms.
Philip and Mary never had children, but if they did, the child would have been King or Queen Regnant of both England and Spain upon his/her parents’ death.

3. In our times, it is highly unlikely marriage of two people would result in merging of two separate Sovereign states. If such a marriage did take place, it is likely one of the following would happen:

- The countries would agree to share the same Monarch (the future child of the couple) but would still remain separate sovereign states – in other words, personal union of Crowns would take place.
That has happened before; when James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I as King of England (as James I of England), that meant personal union of Crowns – that did NOT mean the counties merged (that happened a century later, with the creation of Great Britain).
In fact, there is a precedent in our times as well; Queen Elizabeth is Monarch of 16 separate, Sovereign states (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc); they share the same Monarch but remain separate countries.

- Either the King, or the Queen would have to abdicate.
For example, if Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (future Queen Regnant of Sweden) had married Crown Prince Haakon of Norway (future King of Norway), it is likely either would choose to abdicate to avoid any potential tensions.

- The Parliaments of the respective countries would come to an agreement about the future Line of Succession.
For example, the eldest child of the couple could inherit the Throne in one country, the second one – in the other.

Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then! The 1611 King James Version had an Apocrypha in it, and if it’s missing from YOUR Bible, then PICK ANOTHER DATE. A lie is a lie. If you’re talking about God’s word, and it’s important to you. stop lying.
THEN PICK ANOTHER DATE! IT’S NOT a 1611 BIBLE without the Apocrypha!
Dan,
What date was the King James Version Bible printed without an Apocrypha. Better yet, WHAT PRIINTING DATE IS ON THAT FRIGGIN’ BIBLE YOU
HAVE NOW?!?!?! If it’s NOT 1611, then stop lying!!!
Ivanhoe,
THEN PICK ANOTHER DATE. If there is no Apocrypha. it’s NOT a 1611!
No chance,
It’s not about the Bible at all actually! lol

It’s about how people get trapped into saying something traditional to say, a phrase without a genuine thought in their heads, and head off like sheep to the slaughter. I want Christians to be smarted than that, it is a war against the evil spirits after all. They are smart enough to get Christians to say they use 1611 King James Bibles, when they most likely never even seen one.

We have to be smarter than that!
mopar Mike,
You can’t be close to God, and reject what I’ve been saying about him and faith, grace, peace with God through Christ. So you sound like another person who has succumbed to the powers of darkness, preaching another Gospel, which is not a Gospel at all, who don’t think Gay people can be Christian. Furthermore, you assume too much about my sexual life. It’s typical, and a lie. So repent yourself, you just bore false testimony about me, and you probably wont repent, seeing that your stance is right, and will not accept any other testimony no matter what I say.
Paul,
I used to have an Oxford Bible with Apocrypha. So there is an Apocrypha in some Bibles. You just listen to the traditionalists concerning the Apocrypha, and make assumptions, and then judge by those assumptions. And Christian who is a serious Bible student should read the Apocrypha, in my opinion.

If you don’t read Maccabees at least, you wont understand the mindset of the Zealots during the time of Jesus.

1) Why do some Christians lie and tell us that they use the 1611 King James, when there is no Apocrypha . . .?
in their Bible?

They aren’t *intentionally* lying (at least, in my experience) – they simply have been misinformed, and they are repeating that misinformation.

2) Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then!

Agreed….though you may be being a little too picky here.

The 1611 editions of the King James Version did include the Apocrypha and did not employ modern spelling standards. Also, it employed a Germanic font rather than Roman font. As far as I know, there is no 1611 reprint available that omits the Apocrypha. Extremely few people use an actual 1611 edition (or reprint thereof – even a reprint using Roman font, which is available) – but some **believe that they are** using a 1611 edition when they are not.
http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html
Nearly all people use the King James Version "Standard Text", which was produced in 1769 (and which is now available either with or without the Apocrypha, though originally it, too, included the Apocrypha).

However, I would say that it would not be a lie if a Christian said, "I use the 1769 King James Version" – because the wording *is* identical, even if the contents are not. In other words: nearly all modern editions are reprints of that 1769 Standard Text (whether or not they include the Apocrypha) – so it *is* justifiable to claim that they are using the 1769 text, even when their Bible was not published in 1769 and even though it does not include all of the contents of the 1769 edition.

Conclusion: for most people, it is not correct to claim that they are using a 1611 KJV. However, I would say that it *is* accurate to claim that a reprint of an edition (e.g. the 1611 edition) *is* "the 1611 edition" even if some of the contents are not included (like the Apocrypha) and even if it does not use the same font. SO: in my opinion you are being a *little* too persnickety about this, but your point *is* still a valid one – there are certainly significant differences between the 1611 edition and most modern editions (as can be seen by comparing the samples at the above web site).

- Jim

(Sorry for re-posting. I didn’t get many answers last time)

The thing is, it is overused for a reason. That’s what people expect a bad guy to do. He’d want to take over the land so he could control people and show off his power. If you want to make it less cliche, you could have your antagonist be a good guy trying to help the kingdom and your main character be the bad dictator/king.

The Argument:
We should consider but not be bound by the desires of the dead. They are beyond caring what befalls them. Our greater duty is to the living for whom these remains have profound meaning. It is they who must grapple with the ineffable finality of separation, and this physical stuff, this residue of life, can help.

Even acknowledging death can be daunting, a task that can be eased by the presence of the dead. Lincoln’s body was taken by train through 180 cities, from Washington to Springfield, Ill., and removed at each stop so mourners could see it for themselves. Soldiers seek the remains of comrades fallen long ago. (Such efforts are still underway in Vietnam.) Life can seem suspended, death unreal, if a body is not recovered. Homer dramatizes that heart-rending reality in the final book of the “Iliad” when the Trojan king, Priam, risks his life by entering the Greeks’ camp to retrieve the corpse of his son Hector, an act that moves Achilles to tears.

And overpowered by memory
both men gave way to grief. Priam wept freely
for man-killing Hector, throbbing, crouching
before Achilles’ feet as Achilles wept himself

If the demands of the dead conflict with offering solace to those who loved them, we should honor the latter. It is not just life that is for the living; death is for the living.

The law sees it differently. In most states, survivors must abide by the wishes of the dead. When those wishes cannot be established — for example, if there is no will — authority usually passes to the next of kin, often to a spouse (making this a matter of some concern to proponents of gay marriage). Just as you may bequeath your car or your cash, the law allows you to decide what is to be done with your carcass, treating the question as one of property rights, with you as your own property. This is impressive metaphysical sleight of hand but not much good as ethical guidance for the Jackson family.

Religion too speaks, prescribing how to dispose of the dead. Jews, Christians and Muslims often bury; Hindus tend to burn; the Parsis, Zoroastrians residing in India, place their dead on “towers of silence” to be consumed by vultures. (The Parsis now face the problem of a dwindling vulture population.) But the strictures of one faith often contradict those of another — Islam bars cremation; some Christians accept it — and none seem based on firm moral principles that can instruct nonbelievers. All major faiths discourage murder, for example, but many quibble over embalming. What are the Jacksons to do?

Apparently they will consign Michael neither to a pyre nor to a tower of silence but to Neverland Ranch or Forest Lawn — that is, to a vast or a tiny graveyard. Cemeteries are not just storage centers for corpses; they are also places of communion for the living. Most of us know someone, by any measure sane, who finds comfort in visiting a cemetery and speaking to a deceased loved one. Would it matter to those who find surcease in such settings (whether or not they chat with the dead) if the body were not actually there? It would. Highgate would not be Highgate without the physical remains of Karl Marx or George Eliot. Brooklyn’s Green-Wood would be wan and unaffecting without the corpses of Margaret Sanger and Boss Tweed.

There’d be no reason to visit Pere Lachaise if it did not provide a physical link to Oscar Wilde and Jim Morrison. (Just follow the hideous graffiti to locate the latter.) Communing with the dead, aloud or in silence, is abetted by their presence. This is not to regard Jackson’s body as a public amenity but to acknowledge those who love him as worthy of consideration.

There are other means of communion. Many who cherish the works of a particular writer feel a real connection to the author by visiting his home, that of Charles Dickens or Jane Austen or Samuel Johnson, and no carcass is necessary. These giants are vividly evoked by their furniture, a pen and inkwell, the view from a study window. Even when there is a body, it somehow becomes unimportant. Jefferson is buried at Monticello, but it is his telescope, his rotating bookstand, his mastodon skull (a gift from Lewis and Clark) and, alas, his slave quarters that give us the man. One does not linger at the grave. (At least I did not.)

So it may be for Michael Jackson. If he does not have Jefferson’s stature — who does

Hell ya he’s king & always will b king of pop no one can replace him