gument is one derived completely from silence. It must be noted that only a minute fraction of Tel Hazor has been excavated, and thus the possibility

Hazor, and to find them in the site’s scant few excavated areas, is presuppositionally flawed. Zuckerman also fails to explain why the lower class(es) would initiate an internal revolt that would lead to the irreparable devastation of their native city, which would have to be the case since Hazor was left uninhabited until the 11th century BC, forcing the revolters to evacuate and resettle in other cities throughout the Hula Valley such as Tel-Dan, as Zuckerman suggests. What motive could be strong enough to incite such a peasants’ revolt that would lead to complete, personal disenfranchisement?17. Hoffmeier, “What Is the Biblical Date?,” 245.18. Wood, “Rise and Fall,” 477.19. Hoffmeier, “What Is the Biblical Date?,” 244.20. In Amarna Letter (EA) 227, the ruler of Hazor, while writing to the Egyptian pharaoh, refers to himself as the “king of the city of Hazor,” a case unparalleled in all of the correspondence of the Canaanite cities mentioned in the el-Amarna archive. Furthermore, in EA 148, he is referred to the same way by the ruler of Tyre. Unfortunately, EA 227 is rather fragmentary, but in it the king of Hazor reassures pharaoh that he is safeguarding the cities of pharaoh until the Egyptian king’s arrival (The Amarna Letters, ed. William L. Moran [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992], 289, 235). As Yadin writes, “This indicates no doubt that the King of Hazor’s rule embraced more than the city itself,” which “is further corroborated by the letters of the rulers of Tyre and Ashtaroth” (Yadin, The Head, 8). It should be no surprise that in Judges 4, Jabin is referred to four times as the “king of Canaan,” while only once is he called the “king of Hazor.” In fact, he is called the “king of Canaan, who ruled in Hazor” (Judg 4:2).21. Keil and Delitzsch seem to agree, writing that the purpose of Joshua is to show how the faithful covenant-God of Israel fulfilled the promise that he made to the patriarchs, and how the Canaanites were destroyed and their land was given to the tribes of Israel for a hereditary possession through the medium of Joshua (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Joshua,” in Commentary of the Old Testament, vol. 2 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989], 15).22. Wood, “The Biblical Date: 1446,” 256.23. Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (New York: Random House, 1975), 255. Elsewhere, the former chief excavator at Hazor notes that the destruction of the final Canaanite city undoubtedly is the one “related in the Book of Joshua” (Yadin, “Hazor,” in New Encyclopedia, 603).24. Zuckerman, “Anatomy of a Destruction,” 25.25. Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die? ” JETS 46:4 (Dec 2003), 601, 602. For a development of the argument that the jubilee cycles support a date of 1446 BC for the exodus, see idem, “The Talmud’s Two Jubilees and their Relevance to the Date of the Exodus,” WTJ 68 (2006) 71–83; idem, “Ezekiel 40:1 As a Corrective for Seven



Wrong Ideas in Biblical Interpretation
Three Verifications of Thiele’s Date for the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom,” AUSS 45 (2007) 173–179.26. Petrovich, “Amenhotep II”, 84, footnote 15. This article evaluates the candidacy of Amenhotep II as the exodus-pharaoh by examining this pharaoh’s biography against what must be true of the exodus-pharaoh historically. The conclusion drawn is that Amenhotep II is the only pharaoh of either the 18th or 19th Dynasty who sufficiently meets the necessary biographical requirements. To date, no late-exodus advocate has attempted to challenge the evidence that was presented, or the conclusion that was drawn.27. The commencement of the conquest can be dated exactly. With the exodus datable to 1446 BC, the conquest automatically is dated to 1406 BC, because for “40 years the sons of Israel walked in the wilderness” before entering Canaan (Josh 5:6). Since the crossing of the Jordan River transpired on the 10th day of the first month, a date of 28 April 1406 BC is fixed as the day in which the Israelites crossed into Canaan (Josh 4:19). The new moon that began Nisan of 1406 BC occurred at 05:10 UT (universal time) on 17 April (as listed on the webpage http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/phase/phases-1499.html). Since the time at Shittim in the Plains of Moab, where the Israelites seemingly stayed (Num 25:1; Josh 2:1; 3:1) when the new moon was observed, is 2.4 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), the new moon was observable at 05:10 + 2.383 hours = 07.55 hours, or 7:33 am. When factoring-in the one full day of variance in the earth’s rotational velocity that takes into account the delay in the retrograde motion of the earth during Joshua’s long day (Josh 10:12–13) and Hezekiah’s ten steps on the sun dial (2 Kgs 20:8–11), the new moon actually occurred on 18 April, a date that does not need to be altered since the new moon occurred in the morning, and not after dusk, unlike the new moon for the month of the exodus (Petrovich, “Amenhotep II,” 84, footnote 15). Thus the new moon for the month of the conquest was observed by the Israelite priests on the evening of 18 April 1406 BC. Extrapolating forward, the 10th day of the month of Nisan/Abib would have been 28 April. As for the date of the completion of the conquest, Caleb notes that at the time of the division of the land, and thus immediately after the conquest formally concluded, he was 85 years old (Josh 14:10). He further provides a chronological harmonization for this event by noting that he was 40 years of age when Moses sent the 12 spies from Kadesh-barnea to spy out Canaan (Josh 14:7). Since this spying mission transpired in early summer of the second year after the exodus, and thus in 1445 BC, the 45 years of time (Josh 14:10) between these events effectively date the division of Canaan among the Israelite tribes to 1400 BC. Therefore, the conquest began in 1406 BC and concluded in 1400 BC, a span of six years. The northern campaign was far shorter in length because the operation hinged on one massive battle fought against the powerful king of Hazor and his allies (Josh 11:1–8).28. Although the exact date of Joshua’s death is impossible to determine, a close approximation can be made. While Israel was at Mt. Sinai in ca. 1446 BC, Joshua was said to be “a young man” (Exod 33:11), probably meaning that he was 30–50 years old, in contrast to the aged Moses. Moses was nearly 80 years old during his previous trip to Mt. Sinai (Exod 3:1), since he “was fulfilling 40 years of age” when he departed from Egypt (Acts 7:23), and the angel spoke to him at the burning bush “after 40 years had passed” (Acts 7:30). Leon Wood perceptively notes that “Joshua had been entrusted with more leadership than Caleb and also is said to have been ‘old and well advanced in years’ (Josh. 13:1) when Caleb speaks of himself as being yet strong and vigorous [Josh. 14:11]. Joshua was probably more than ninety at this time” (LeoRosetta Stone Spanish

argue strongly in favor of a connection between A2 and Egypt’s losses after the exodus. This circumstantial evidence obviously will not satisfy

Rosetta Stone German

that the Apiru be characterized as ethnically diverse,

leaving Beitzel’s claim curious and unfounded. Hoffmeier even underscores the certainty of the Apiru’s ethnic homogeneity: “It is clear from the occurrence in the [Memphis] stele of Amenhotep II that they were identified as a specific group like the other ethnic groups taken as prisoners by the king.”153 This claim of homogeneity is correct for two reasons. (1) The ethnic homogeneity of the Apiru is certain since they were listed among the ethnic groups on the booty list of A2. “Listing the habiru alongside of other ethnic groups from Hurru, Retenu, and the Shasu suggests that the Egyptians may have viewed the habiru as a distinguishable ethnic group.”154 The Apiru appear third on the list, preceded by princes and brothers of the princes, and followed by three names with geographic connotation: the Shasu, who were Bedouin to the south of Palestine; the Kharu, who were “Horites,” residents of Syro-Palestine; and the Nagasuites/Neges, who dwelled in Upper Retenu, near Aleppo.155 Grimal compares the ethnic distinctiveness of both the Apiru and the Shasu Bedouin: “Among the prisoners of war were said to be 3,600 Apiru, an ethnic group clearly distinct from the Shosu Bedouin, who are enumerated separately.”156 The Annals of Thutmose III confirm the Kharu’s ethnicity: That feeble enemy of Kadesh has entered Megiddo, and he is [there] at this moment, having rallied to himself the chieftains of [every] foreign land [who had been] allies of Egypt, as well as (those) from as far away as Naharin in/being [. . .], Kharu, and Kedy, their horses, their armies, and [their people].157 Since the Kharu are listed among peoples with armies and horses, along with Mitanni (Naharin), their distinct ethnicity—and thus that of the Apiru, as well—cannot be doubted.(2) The ethnic homogeneity of the Apiru is certain due to their prominent position among the ethnic groups on the booty list of A2. The 3,600 Apiru are notably more numerous than the princes and brothers of the princes who appear before them, and notably fewer than the three people-groups listed after them.158 The scribe of the Memphis Stele attributes the initial position to royalty, and only afterward does he name distinct ethnic groups, among which the Apiru appear first, despite their number being far fewer than that of the subsequent ethnic groups. This initial, prominent position among non-royal captives is easily explainable if these were Hebrews, and the exodus had occurred half of a year before A2. Amenhotep II obviously would desire to accentuate his enslavement of loathsome Israelites, whom he held responsible for humbling Egypt’s pantheon and depleting her mighty army, even if their number paled in comparison to the 2,000,000+ whom he had lost. d. Accounting for the Bible’s Silence about the 3,600 Captured Israelites. How does the Bible account for the Egyptians’ capture of 3,600 Hebrews when the main body of Israelites was wandering in the wilderness in the distant Sinai Peninsula under Moses’ leadership (Num 14:33)? The date for A2 in November of the exodus-year coincides with a silent period in Biblical history. Exodus concludes with Israel near Mount Sinai, though Moses parenthetically adds a retrospective summary of how the Lord guided them during their subsequent journeys (Exod 40:36–38). Meanwhile, Numbers begins in the 14th month after the exodus (Num 1:1), about five months after A2 concluded. Therefore, A2 fits into this silent period, with no inherent conflict between the capture of the 3,600 Israelites—who probably left the Israelite camp and journeyed toward southern Palestine, near the travel route of A2—and the Biblical events that transpired after the exodus.159IX. AMENHOTEP II AND THE DESECRATION OF HATSHEPSUT’S IMAGEEgyptian history itself may confirm that Amenhotep II was the exodus-pharaoh. The Thutmosid succession entered into an extraordinary phase at the death of Thutmose II, as the throne was given first to his son, Thutmose III, and later assumed as well by his widow, Hatshepsut. Her rise to power resulted from her position as the child-king’s regent; given his youthfulness, her self-appointment to the rank of coregent probably met little or no opposition within the royal court.160 Sometime between Year 2 and Year 4 of Thutmose III, Hatshepsut assumed full royal titulary, making herself a female pharaoh of equal rank.1611. Identifying Moses’ Adoptive Mother.Moses evidently was born during the reign of Thutmose I, whose daughter, Hatshepsut, qualifies as a legitimate candidate for the pharaoh’s daughter who drew Moses from the Nile River (Exod 2:5).162 Was she old enough during her father’s second regnal year, most likely the time in which Moses was born (ca. 1527 BC), to qualify as his Egyptian stepmother?a. Hatshepsut’s Age Viewed as Being Insufficient. One scenario may preclude Hatshepsut from being the princess who drew Moses from the Nile. The chief wife of Thutmose I, Queen Ahmose, was called “the King’s Sister,” but never “the King’s Daughter,” a title given only to a princess. Egyptians generally were not reserved about recording ranks and titles, so this reticence may indicate that Ahmose was not a pharaoh’s daughter, and thus was neither the daughter nor the sister of Amenhotep I. Instead, she may have been the sister or half-sister of Thutmose I. If this were true, a brother-sister marriage almost certainly would have occurred after Thutmose I was promoted to heir apparent, as incestuous marriages are extremely rare outside of the immediate royal family, and such political matches that consolidated a would-be successor’s claim to the throne were standard procedure in ancient Egypt.163 Perhaps, then, Hatshepsut was born after Thutmose I was coronated (ca. 1529 BC), and thus was barely over twelve years old when she married her (half-)brother (ca. 1516 BC). This means that Hatshepsut would have been less than three years of age at the time of Moses’ birth, at which age she hardly could have ventured down to the Nile, let alone draw out an infant-bearing reed basket from the river.b. Hatshepsut’s Age Viewed as Being Sufficient. Yet there is no proof that Hatshepsut was born after her father’s accession, and the current lack of attestation to Queen Ahmose being a “King’s Daughter” does not preclude her from being the daughter of Amenhotep I. In addition, the uncertainty about when Thutmose II’s reign began means that he may have served as co-regent with his father, Thutmose I, for several years before he ruled alone. Hatshepsut thus would have been of sufficient age to draw Moses out of the Nile during her father’s second regnal year, so she remains a legitimate candidate for Moses’ Egyptian adoptive-mother, especially since her father was already over 35 years old when he assumed the throne.c. Hatshepsut’s Sister Akhbetneferu as a Candidate. Is Hatshepsut the only candidate for Moses’ royal adoptive-mother? Confusion exists over the number of children actually born to Thutmose I and Queen Ahmose. Only two daughters, Hatshepsut and her sister, Princess Akhbetneferu, are known to have been born to the royal couple. However, Princess Akhbetneferu died in infancy, so she cannot qualify as a candidate for the princess who found Moses, leaving Hatshepsut as the only known daughter of Thutmose I who does qualify.164d. Hatshepsut’s Potential Step-Sister as a Candidate. One other option exists for Moses’ adoptive-mother, but not through Queen Ahmose. Thutmose I had a secondary wife named Queen Mutnofret, the mother of Thutmose II. Little is known of her but that she was a person of rank, probably even royal blood, as an inscription at Karnak calls her “the King’s Daughter.” Mutnofret, and not Ahmose, actually appears in the king’s mortuary chapel alongside the royal princes Ramose and Wadjmose, both of whom probably died before their father.165 Therefore, perhaps even numerous princes were born before their father married Ahmose.



Rosetta Stone

r and Votow 1984: frontispiece). Arther Ferrill chastises his colleagues and corroborates my analysis of this problem when he states that although mos

n archaeological fact. After some analysis and consultation with "scholars," he arrives at his conclusion that the conquest of Canaan as a unified military campaign led by a single, divinely directed leader, while undoubtedly a powerful narrative, may have little basis in historical fact (1992: 2). Even the existence of the Bible's greatest king, David, and his military exploits have not been accepted by mainline scholars in major universities, as was reported after the recent discovery of a fragment of stone, widely believed by many to be the first known reference outside the Bible to King David. Although the stone does refer to the "House of David," even this evidence is not enough for Dr. Jack Sasson, professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, who states that the reference to the House of David did not necessarily prove the man existed (Wilford 1993: A1, B2) [emphasis mine!]. Such intellectual arrogance and unwillingness to accept the Bible's accounts of history by those who are closest to the study of the era has led military scholars to overlook a valuable source of information about the origins of the elusive principles of military science. It should be clear to any reader of the Old Testament that its pages detail many military activities. The Bible's accounts are considerably more ancient than those most military analysts use. Archaeologists categorize the Old Testament periods as the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age II (1550-586 BC), times that pre-date the Greco-Roman period by centuries. Therefore, it seems to me that the books of the Old Testament are a primary source, written over 3,000 years ago by many authors. Thus, they should be used by military theorists.I have often wondered why Bible scholars have not pointed out the Bible's historical cohesiveness and accuracy to military historians and theorists. I suspect one reason is that Bible commentators are not trained in military affairs. As a result, they study the Bible to learn moral or spiritual lessons, not principles of war. In the same way, military scholars overlook



The Bible because they perceive it as a book of moral and spiritual lessons,
Not a book of military history or theory.The tendency for military scholars to ignore the importance of the Bible is unfortunate, for, as Abraham Malamat has pointed out, many Biblical sources, when stripped of their theological varnish, do present a candid record of military lessons... (1979: 38).1 Recently, a military affairs analyst has written several books that do take pre-Classical history into account. Richard Gabriel argues that except for a handful of scholars, the field of ancient military history has been only rudimentarily explored, no doubt due somewhat to the lack of an attentive audience. He points to the fact that ancient Near Eastern armies deployed forces of modern size and conducted sophisticated military operations approaching the complexity of the United States' recent Persian Gulf campaign (Gabriel and Getz 1991: xiv)! I would argue that there is an "attentive audience" of many Bible scholars and interested lay people who would welcome cogent and accurate analyses and insights of military operations and activities in the Old Testament if they were written by scholars of military affairs.Importance of GeographyAt this point the reader may be asking, "What kinds of lessons and insights could be learned if military scholars and historians would examine the pages of the Old Testament with a view toward accepting its accuracy and reliability?" A complete discussion of the subject is not within the scope of this short article, but a few examples should serve to illustrate the point.Military operations are fought over terrain, and therefore one of the most important determinants of military operations has to do with geography. In ancient times, as well as modern, terrain dictates the tactics and strategies of military leaders. From Joshua's conquering of the backbone of the "Promised Land" to General Schwartzkopf's use of the vastness of the Arabian desert to conceal preparations for one of the greatest tank battles in history, successful military tacticians have taken advantage of landforms to accomplish their objectives. Military leaders who do not, will probably fail. In Israel, the mountainous backbone has been an obstacle to invading armies for millennia and a place of refuge for its inhabitants. In spite of the ruggedness of the high hills, God directed Joshua to occupy that precise piece of real estate as recorded in the early chapters of the Book of Joshua. In so doing, Joshua secured the Israelites' presence in Canaan. History confirms that no sovereign state has been able to exist in Palestine without occupying the central ridge, and countless ruins of fortifications on its heights and approaches silently attest to the highland's importance. Invaders have avoided the mountains. Napoleon, when asked if he was going to occupy Palestine's mountains, is supposed to have said: I should not wish to share the fate of Cestius; I will not be bogged down in the mountains (Gichon 1985: 182). Instead, conquerors have occupied the coastal plains and the impoEnglish Rosetta Stone

Unfortunately they were closed

but we could get a clear feel for the terrain around the excavations. Near the enclosure for the excavations was the Church of Tas-Silg, a very prominent building in the region. On Friday, January 14, we walked around the point where St. Thomas Tower is located and then along the edge of the low cliffs to St. Thomas Bay. There was no wind so the sea was flat and no waves were breaking on the Munxar Reef. On Sunday, January 16, however, a very strong windstorm hit Malta. I returned to St. Thomas Bay and walked out to the point overlooking the Munxar Reef. The waves clearly indicated the line of the Munxar Reef. After watching the waves, I turned around to observe the terrain behind me. Up the slopes of the hill the Church of Tas-Silg and the enclosure wall of the Tas-Silg excavations were clearly visible. Just to confirm the visibility from Tas-Silg, I walked along dirt paths and through fields up to the enclosure wall. As I stood on the outside of the wall, just opposite the Roman temple, I looked down and could see the waves breaking on the Munxar Reef. There was eye contact between the outer Munxar Reef and this important shrine with no apparent obstruction in the line of view. If I could see the Munxar Reef then someone at the Munxar Reef could have seen me and the elevated terrain landmarks around me such as the prominent Temple of Juno.If the Apostle Paul’s ship was anchored near the Munxar Reef, when it was morning, the sea captain and the sailors immediately would have recognized where they were. Luke, who was on board the ship, testifies that they did not recognize where they were (Acts 27:39). Thus the Munxar Reef does not meet the Biblical criteria for the shipwreck of Paul.Is the "Meeting of two seas" at the Munxar Reef? (Acts 27:41)When the sea captain gave the orders for the ropes of the four anchors to be cut, Luke says they struck "a place where two seas meet" (Acts 27:41). The Greek words for "two seas meet" is transliterated, "topon dithalasson." The meaning of these two Greek words, "two seas meet," has been translated in the book as "place of two seas" (2003: 71), "a place where two seas meet" (2003: 217), "two seas meet" (2003: 29, 73, 194), and "a place between waters" (2003: 29).Mr. Cornuke gives three possible meanings for this Greek phrase on page 82 of his book and footnotes it as his #16. Footnote 16 is page 148 of Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1893). When one examines Thayer’s definition of topon dithalasson, he gives more definitions than Mr. Cornuke gives in his book. Thayer starts off by saying it means, "resembling [or forming] two seas." Also "lying between two seas, i.e. washed by the sea on both sides... an isthmus." If we take these omitted meanings into consideration, it opens up other possibilities on the island for the location of the shipwreck.There have been other studies done on the Greek phrase topon dithalasson which appears only once in the Greek New Testament (Gilchrist 1996: 42-46). Professor Mario Buhagiar, of the University of Malta, cautions that this term "does not offer any real help because it can have several meanings and the way it is used in Acts 27:41, does not facilitate an interpretation. A place where two seas meet (Authorised and Revised versions) and a cross sea (Knox Version) are the normally accepted translations but any beach off a headland (Liddell and Scott) or an isthmus whose extremity is covered by the waves (Grimms and Thayer), as indeed most water channels, can qualify as the place where the boat grounded. The truth is that the Acts do not give us sufficient clues to help in the identification of the site" (Buhagiar 1997: 200).There are other locations on the island that fit the description of the lying between two seas and an isthmus.Is the "bay with a beach" at St. Thomas Bay? (Acts 27:39)In introducing this passage, Mr. Cornuke remarks, "The Bible states that sailors aboard Paul’s ship, having anchored off the coast of Malta in a near hurricane, peered out at the horizon at midnight on the fourteenth night, and ... observed a bay with a beach" (2003: 27). Actually, verse 39 states, "Now when it was day..." (NKJV), "And when day came..." (NASB), "And when it was day..." (KJV). It was not midnight as stated in the book. If it were at midnight, and especially during a gragale, it would be pitch black and they would not have been able to see anything.There is a second problem with Mr. Cornuke’s identification. According to Map 3, the ship was anchored on the south side of the Munxar Reef before the ropes were cut. More than likely in the First Century AD, the sea captain would not have been able to see the low-level beach of St. Thomas Bay from where he was anchored though the elevated landmarks would have been visible and recognizable.Geographers who study land forms are well aware that coastlines change over time. This could be a result of silting, as in the case of Marsa and the Marsascala Bay. Erosion by the sea is always going on. Seismic activity could change coastlines as well. Malta has many fault lines on or around it that could move land mass up, down or sideways. A certain depth in the sea, or elevation on land, today might not necessarily be what it was 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. Tsunamis are known in the Mediterranean Sea, and several have been recorded in the history of Malta. In 1693 a tsunami hit the island of Gozo. The water receded a mile and then returned with a vengeance (Azzopardi 2002: 60). Shifting sand moved by a tsunami could have changed the contour of the seabed.A careful look at Map 2 with a magnifying glass reveals that the Munxar Reef is above the waterline and has what appeared to be three small islands. Unfortunately this map is not identified; nor is there a date given for when or by whom it was produced.The D’Aleccio map of the siege of Malta in 1565 was produced and published in 1582. On that map, the Munxar Reef appears as a series of small islands or a peninsula (Ganado 1984: Plate 18).An Internet search revealed the Boisgelin Map of Malta produced in 1805, but I have not examined this map first hand. The Munxar Reef looked like the horn of a unicorn. Geographically, it could be a peninsula or a series of small islands.The earliest known map of Malta was produced in 1536 (Vella 1980). Map 2 must be later than this one, as are the D’Aleccio and Boisgelin maps. They tell us that at least in the 16th century there were three small islands, or a peninsula, above the Munxar Reef. The question is, what was the reef like in the First Century AD? According to the "Geological Map of the Maltese Islands" (Map 1, 1993) the cliff overlooking the Munxar Reef is made of Middle Globigerina Limestone. It is described as "a planktonic foraminifera-rich sequence of massive, white, soft carbonate mudstones locally passing into pale-grey marly mudstone." Assuming the small islands and/or peninsula were made of the same material, over 2,000 years this soft limestone would have eroded away by the constant wave action and occasional tsunamis. If this is the case, it raises some interesting questions: Were the small islands bigger, or was it a peninsula in the First Century AD? If so, how high was the land and how far out did it go? If it were higher than the grain ship, then it would lead to serious questions as to whether the captain could see the beach at all. It might have even been impossible to cross over it by sea in order to reach the beach.The Six Anchors (Acts 27: 28-30, 40)Mr. Cornuke interviewed people, primarily old divers and spear fishermen, who claimed to have located four anchors on the south side of the Munxar Reef at 15 fathoms, or 90 feet of water. These interviews are the author’s prime evidence for Paul’s shipwreck. To be more precise, Mr. Cornuke located four anchor stocks, a stock being one part of a whole anchor.Before discussing the six anchor stocks that allegedly were discovered, a description of a wooden Roman anchor is necessary.

English Rosetta Stone

10 Mar 11 Five Average Movies That Are Worth a Look, But Only Once

Five Average Movies That Are Worth a Look, But Only OnceBy: Ed Bagley .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet ? 2006 Ed BagleyThe Bourne Supremacy – 2 Stars (Average)In a CIA sting in Berlin two agents get murdered and a former agent, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), is framed for the hit. Bourne was in India with his girlfriend at the time, having dropped out of the CIA after suffering amnesia.The sting gone wrong was an inside job, which was one of CIA's own, just not Bourne. In the meantime, the CIA wants Bourne dead, and so does the ruthless cartel that was paid to frame him.This is an action adventure, and not a bad start to a movie, but the presentation suffers because it is too hard to follow the story line, the sound is terrible (you just cannot hear much of the movie without turning up the volume very high), and the main auto chase scene in the movie is beyond ridiculous.Yes, there are cars crashing everywhere, but what happens during the chase is just stupid. Why is it that in the movies, always, always, always, there are 5,000 cops and police cars chasing the wronged victim, and the police officers chasing the "bad guy" are cast as idiots?The police in The Bourne Supremacy are presented as dumber than a rock when, in real life, just the opposite is true, as the criminal is more often than not captured because he is dumb.This flaw in movie making hurts the reality of the presentation in a suspenseful drama, and makes it tougher to swallow. Please, leave the dumb, bungling cop routine for edies (I believe we call this associating appropriately).Catch Me If You Can – 2 Stars (Average)This movie is based on the true story of Frank Abagnale, Jr. who successfully conned millions of dollars by impersonating a pilot, physician and legal prosecutor, and he did this all before his 19th birthday. Abagnale was nothing if not very bright, and even more clever than bright considering his age.Catch Me If You Can stars Leonardo DiCaprio (the pursued) and Tom Hanks (the pursuer), both former Academy Award winners. Catch Me If You Can has a great story line, but it is not a great film. In a word, it was disappointing.This great chase has its moments, just too few of them. Both DiCaprio and Hanks are miscast in this film; the casting director should be demoted. The script is suspect too because it is disjointed and lacks believable depth.The Breakfast Club – 2 Stars (Average)This film focuses on five teens who spend all day Saturday in detention at a high school. They arrive not knowing each other and leave as new friends, having experienced some personal growth as their self-defense mechanisms crumble under the stress and proximity of the situation.They are Andrew the Jock (Emilio Estevez), Brian the Brain (Anthony Michael Hall), John the Criminal (Judd Nelson), Claire the Princess (Molly Ringwald) and Allison the Kook (Ally Sheedy).The Breakfast Club was written and directed by John Hughes. The number of awards this film received was zero, zip, nada (or, you might say, average).This is a film about the interpersonal relationships among the teenagers, all of whom suffer from difficult relationships with their parents.The impact of the parents' treatment and expectations is more than evident, and underscores how impressionable teenagers are at this point in their understanding and maturity about life.The Christmas Child – 2 Stars (Average)A Chicago journalist goes to a small Texas town on an assignment with another motive in mind, to find out about his past. He was adopted and wants to find his roots.His marriage is on the rocks when he arrives, and by struggling to find his past, and confronting the truth, he finds himself and saves his marriage. This film could be on the Hallmark channel, as there is no filth, no violence and no sex to mess up a good story line with some surprise happenings.Arsenic and Old Lace – 2 Stars (Average)A drama critic discovers that his two elderly aunts are helping their male callers by poisoning them with arsenic and burying them in the basement. Their nephew who is mentally ill and apparently harmless, digs the graves in the basement and believes that he is President Teddy Roosevelt.This film, made in 1944 (the year I was born), is in black and white; color films had not yet been perfected. Arsenic and Old Lace stars Cary Grant in what must have been his first film, or one his first films, as his performance is not star quality.The film is funny and gives a real snapshot of how the movie business has changed in a half century.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryEd Bagley is the author of Ed Bagley's Blog, which he publishes daily with fresh, original articles on Internet Marketing, Jobs and Careers, Movie Reviews and Lessons in Life intended to delight, inform, educate and motivate readers. Visit Ed at . . .edbagleyblogNote: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Ed BagleyRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Movies Film via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Arts Movies FilmWhy Calibrate your High Definition TV?- By : Robert ShefferSweet Phone - By : Tim Webb.Find out Home Theater Methods! What You have Been Missing in Your TV and Movie Encounter.- By : Joesph MellbergPreparing and Setting up a Home Theater system is Easier Than you Think!- By : Zachariah DivensGrown Ups 2010 Movie In Review- By : Elenor CherryCamera Crew Hire- By : Mark A. WilsonReview of Drive Angry Movie- By : Gursel BatmazReturn Of The Horror Legend: Scream 4- By : Gursel BatmazMovie Review: Clash Of The Titans Leaves Audiences Wanting- By : Elenor CherryRed Riding Hood The Movie- By : Gursel Batmaz Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

5 Mar 11 How Many Affiliate Checks Do You Want To Receive?

How Many Affiliate Checks Do You Want To Receive?By: karl glantschnig .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Affiliate Marketing is by far, one of the easiest ways to make money online. It is a revenue sharing business relationship between the affiliate who agrees to promote the products or services, and the merchant who offers them.The affiliate advertises the merchant's products and services and gets a commission for every successful referral. Every time a customer is referred to the merchant's site, throughNHL Shop
the affiliate's efforts, and makes a purchase, the affiliate gets a share of the profit. No payment is due to the affiliate until successful results are realized. Compensation is based on either number of visits (Pay-per-click), registrant (Pay-per-lead), or commission for each sale (Pay-per-sale).Affiliate Marketers can earn a few bucks to thousands of dollars with affiliate programs. The opportunity to earn in affiliate marketing can only be limited by the affiliate's determination, creativity and strategy. It is a brilliant way to earn online, and you do not have to produce your own product or service to make a buck. By advertising your merchant's products passionately, you get more in return. Profits in affiliate marketing usually start small but can get larger as the campaign starts to build up steam. There are many ways that an affiliate marketer can do to maximize their profits. If you ask any affiliate marketer how many affiliate checks they would want to receive, they will most likely want to get as many as possible. Some affiliate checks are small, amounting to nothing more than $25. While others are large and can easily reach the thousands and even more. Over time, these affiliate checks may build up to a really impressive amount. However, making a fortune in affiliate marketing is not instant. You should put in enough work and effort as well. You have to use your imagination to find more ways to attract more web traffic that can convert to sales for the merchant and profit for you as well.How many affiliate checks do you want to receive? Most affiliate marketers will enthusiastically reply that they want to receive as many affiliate checks as possible. However, is it as easy as it sounds? Does joining many affiliate marketers guarantee more affiliate checks that really amount to something? The answer is No. Most affiliate marketers assume that joining multiple affiliate programs is a wise option. Because, it is very easy to join affiliate programs and there is really nothing to lose, affiliate marketers are tempted to join as many programs they can get their hands on. Thus, they fail to give their affiliate programs enough attention and work that they ought to receive. The maximum potential of the affiliate programs are not realized and the resulting income from these programs will almost certainly be disappointing.The best way to achieve multiple streams of income is to concentrate on one affiliate program first. Choose a product or service that you can promote passionately. Pick a product in which you have complete trust. The best products and services to promote are those that you use personally. Your prospects will be able to sense your sincerity whenever you promote a product that you have experienced. This will greatly enhance your credibility as well as your product's marketability and will Montreal Canadiens jersey
really encourage your prospect to purchase or avail of the product or service.As soon as your first affiliate program is making a reasonable profit then you can proceed to joining another affiliate program and repeat the process. "Too much, too soon" is a common pitfall in affiliate marketing. Joining too many affiliate programs simultaneously in the hopes of having multiple streams of income simply does not work.Focus first on one affiliate program and work on it so that it makes a good profit. Then, go find another promising program and give it your best effort. The question should not be how many affiliate checks you want to receive, but how many "high-paying" affiliate checks can you receive. The answer lies in your determination to succeed and determination to maximize your earning potential. With the right tools, the right actions, and perseverance you can definitely make a good profit out of affiliate marketing.Article Source: http://www.shop-on-sale.com A Million Dollar Work At Home Expert Shows You How To find the best home based business ideas and oportunities so you can work at home!www.work-at-home-finder.comInternet Home Business Ideas and Opportunities Newsletter!www.work-at-home-finder.com/optin.htmlNote: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, karl glantschnigRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Affiliate Programs What Cloth Diaper Provides The Top Match For Newborns?- By : mirtagaylWhat is Affiliate Marketing and Why You Should Do It?- By : James A AndersonEarning Money Quickly WithCanadiens jersey
Email Marketing - True or False?- By : chad buistMoney Creating Tips For Individuals Involved In An Online Affiliate Marketing Home Business- By : Johnny BarrellGlobal Success Club And How To Make Money Online- By : Don SeanMake Cash Over The Internet With Affiliate Marketing- By : Leroy WheelerWhich Affiliate Networks To Look Out For When Promoting ?- By : Elsa Braxton Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!