July 31

Yes brethren, it's the last day of July and no more sleeps to go. After weeks of anticipation we can all finally yell out...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY HERB!

The apostle was born in Old Des Moines today in 1892. Fireworks and revelry began at midnight as millions poured out of cities like New Auckland and Lomaville (formerly Sydney) to pay homage to God's Right Hand Man, who has just returned from his 33rd Universe-wide junket visiting alien government heads in Andromeda on behalf of the Government of God. The biggest celebrations have yet to commence when the first rays of the sun strike the New Temple in Armstrong City (formerly Jerusalem) in a few hours time. Since He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named returned in glory in 1975 the world has been transformed into a true Garden of Eden, and we are all very, very grateful. Just yesterday the resurrected Richard "Dick" Armstrong placed the final shovel full of soil - removed in 1982 from the summit of Mount Everest - into what had been the Atlantic Ocean. Prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes!

Not even the rebellion of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named can dampen the thrill of this year's Herbalmass; after all, we're all aware of other sons who went wrong. Exactly where HWMNBN will establish his new rebel headquarters is as yet unknown, but Herbert W. Armstrong, now promoted to fill his executive role, has ruled out a possible location in the Sides of the North. Roderick C. Meredith, now number 3 following the defection of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is quoted in The Happier, Bestest Ever News as saying: "let him camp out in the Dog Star."

Meanwhile "Kscribe" has released his annual birthday bash tribute to the Mighty One at www.herbertwarmstrongvideo.net, please report any family members who fail to view it to the local enforcement office in your area.

Prophet of the Seventies

Few individuals were as influential in the 1974 exodus as former AC professor of theology Ernest Martin. His booklets were read surreptitiously by ministers and lay members alike. I even remember a sermonette given by the very proper Karl Karlov, regarded by some (poor, deluded souls) as the intellectual grunt in the New Zealand WCG, attempting to deconstruct Martin's arguments on tithing.

But please, don't get me started on Karlov, or I'll tell you the umbrella story, and we'll all regret that! I'm not sure whether even Karl understood his own anemic sermons. I gather he apostatized to UCG in Australia after relentlessly gushing about the changes in the Good News Grapevine. No, I really shouldn't have mentioned his name. Quick Gertrude, slap me quick before I carry on any fur...

Thanks.

As I was saying: Ernest Martin and tithing. His booklet was a huge influence in stemming the tide of tithe dollars to Pasadena. In my files is a copy of the 1979 edition entitled The Tithing Fallacy. I frankly wasn't impressed by some things he wrote, but when it came to blowing apart the abusive nonsense WCG taught on tithing, the man was a steamroller! It was the most potent counterblast on that subject I'd seen, and it's still one of the best.

But I'm wandering... it comes with the advancing years, just ask "Kscribe". Irritating I know, but just imagine what Karl Karlov must sound like now! Keep your distance with that rolling pin Gertrude!

So, Martin produced an expanded edition of that superb little 38 page booklet and relaunched it in 14 (!) chapters as The Tithing Dilemma. I haven't read it, but if it's as good as its predecessor then it's very good indeed. WARNING: the intended audience is Christian folk who take the Bible seriously, so all you Godless reprobates are sure to complain about the assumptions he brings to the task: tough bikkies (I wonder if that translates in American slang?) The reality is that the people who will most benefit from a publication like this are good Christian folk who take the Bible extremely seriously, so quit your mithering.

The good news is that this expanded version is available in full online here: check it out. Fourteen chapters is a bit intimidating, but promises a comprehensive debunking. I'm glad it's still out there, and it'd be great to think that it might continue to assist in the righteous task of draining the cash flow of the manipulative sects that claim the Herbal mantle.

The REAL Baptists

We all know the story. John the Baptist is Jesus' cousin. John baptises Jesus. John declares he's unworthy to do the deed. John is executed by Herod Antipas. John's followers come over to Jesus.

Except, not all of them did. The community of John the Baptist initially paralleled that of the early church, each eventually going its own way.

Today the Baptist's disciples still exist, and we're not talking Billy Graham, Franklin or any of those other Johnny-come-lately Protestant Baptists.

Take seven minutes out of your busy web surfing schedule to find out about the Mandaeans. Witness a baptism, meet a high priest. And be aware that these people, spiritual kin to both Jews and Christians, having survived for two thousand years are now fighting a desperate battle to keep the flame alive as we enter the twenty-first century.

The Rebellious Son

This is part 4 of a series by Samuel Martin. This posting is taken from an appendix to the book Thy Rod and thy Staff. The website for further information is www.biblechild.com.

Misunderstanding the harshness in Biblical Teachings

One of the recurring themes found in many articles and books written by psychologists or those in the children's rights/human rights community against smacking concerns some statements that are found in the Bible which seem very harsh on the surface. The fact is, there are some statements that are in the Bible, when looked at on the surface, one would come away with a very harsh, cold and unfeeling approach to life advocated by the writers of the Bible.

I could give many examples, but in this regard, I am going to focus just on one. The example is from the book of Deuteronomy chapter 21:18-21. It concerns the so-called "stubborn and rebellious" son. The text reads: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

This text seems so clear and easy to understand. It is the death penalty without exception. Speaking about the above-mentioned text from the book of Deuteronomy, Dr. Philip Greven whose excellent work I have previously quoted in this volume, interpreted this text in the following way. "Other Old Testament texts lend additional support to the punishment and violence against children advocated in the name of King Solomon. … Thus, the price for filial disobedience is death." This is a common interpretation about the harshness of the legislation outlined in the book of Deuteronomy, but does it represent an accurate historical understanding of the application of the text itself?

Looking on the surface, this interpretation is exactly that related by the text itself. Moses comes across as a harsh, legalistic and brutal writer. But is this the truth? What is required of this text is some accurate interpretation. In this regard, I wish now to refer to the work of Rabbi Abraham Chill, whose excellent book has been quoted in other sections of this work. Rabbi Chill provides a thorough historical context for interpreting this text. This text cannot be interpreted without the assistance of outside authorized authorities. Rabbi Chill, who is himself a recognized authority of Jewish law, points to almost 20 different historical sources to assist him in understanding this passage. It is by referring to the intellectual giants of past scholarship that we can see the depth and breadth of opinion regarding this or any Biblical text. Rabbi Chill, a giant of Biblical scholarship, would not think for one moment of referring to this text in a historical vacuum and offer a face value estimation of its meaning.

There are two points about this text and about the death penalty in general, as it was understood in the Biblical and post-Biblical period. First, the death penalty was imposed only when the Temple in Jerusalem was in existence.

"Under Jewish Law capital punishment was imposed only when the Temple was still in existence, when the offerings were still brought to the altar, and when the Sanhedrin still sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stones (in the Temple). This means that no matter what this text says, following the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 by the Romans, this text has never even once been applied to anyone.

"Second, death sentences were not every day occurrences. We need not to rely on the images of colorful Hollywood films that perpetuate historical inaccuracies. We need to examine the historical documents to teach us what was indeed taking place based upon eyewitness testimony. Note the following: "the death sentence was imposed only after much investigation and deliberation on the part of the court of justice. The judges made every effort to avoid imposing capital punishment. Circumstantial evidence was not accepted in trials for a capital offence and once the defendant in the such a case had been acquitted, he could not be brought to trial again for the same offence, even if direct evidence had turned up in the meantime to prove his guilt."

It must be pointed out here that we are speaking about a Jewish cultural background. This quote refers to "judges," the Court of Justice," "defendants," and a "case." These terms must be understood as referring to courts that were in existence to adjudicate matters of law and in this case we are talking about matters of Jewish religious law. In addition, on reading this quote, some may be reminded of the concept of "double jeopardy" which is a component of our modern Western judicial systems. Jewish legal scholars have known about "double jeopardy" for over 2000 years and it was applied in ancient times.

We find other sources making even stronger cases against the death penalty. Note the following:

"Should the court find that the homicide was deliberate, sentence of death was passed; but there was great reluctance to resort to capital punishment and every endeavor was made to avoid it. Indeed, it was remarked: 'A Sanhedrin which executed a person once in seven years was called destructive. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, 'Once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarphon and Rabbi Akiba said, If we were members of a Sanhedrin, never would a person be put to death.'" So, we see that the death penalty itself had very strict rules and regulations associated with it.

The Stubborn and Rebellious Son

Next, what constituted a "stubborn and rebellious son?" There is no age mentioned in the text, so who decides? Rabbi Chill shows that "who is considered a 'stubborn and rebellious son'? Any young man three months past bar mitzvah age…" This means that this punishment was never inflicted on anyone below the age of 13 years three months. So the concept of "son" required interpretation.

This all may sound interesting, but many may say that this is still a harsh punishment even for a child who just turned thirteen? This may be but consider this. Rabbi Chill points out that the death penalty was not the first solution to a family choosing to apply this law to their child. "The first offence reported by the parents made the boy subject to flogging; if he repeated the offence and was again brought to the court by his parents he received the death penalty – execution by stoning." So, we can see that ancient Israelites were not taking their children out and stoning them to death every time a boy ate too much or drank some wine. There was strict due process involved and those accused of these crimes had legal rights before the law. When you look at it, early Jews were quite familiar with the modern concepts of human and children's rights. Much of what makes up our modern body of law today in this regard was known and practiced in ancient times.

Some might say that here we begin to see the harsh nature of this law after all. Not so fast! Rabbi Chill further adds that: "At least 23 members of the Sanhedrin had to be present when such an offender was tried. Not only that, if one of his parents was lame, blind or deaf, or if one of his parents was unwilling to have him brought to court, the offender was exempt from the death penalty. This meant, in effect, that the death penalty for a 'stubborn and rebellious son' was very rarely carried out."
An addition, regarding this point of the 23 judges, a majority was not sufficient to convict a person in a death penalty case. The judges had to have a majority with a minimum of two votes. This shows that such a case required a great deal of deliberation to judge the defendant guilty. We also find that the junior judges in such a case had to cast their votes first on the basis of their respective ages. The older judges voted last so their votes would not influence the opinion of the younger judges. By digging deeper into the history surrounding this text, we dispel the false notion that the ancient Hebrews were a brutal, violent, lawless society that stoned their children for the most minor of infractions. [This information should be a wake up call to those in the human rights community whose attacks on the Bible often focus on this and similar verses for their criticisms leveled at the Holy Scriptures.]

We also find that the child himself was not the only one on trial. The great medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides placed some of the blame for "stubborn and rebellious sons" squarely on the parents. "How does a son become 'stubborn and rebellious'? Through the fault of the parents who are too permissive and permit him to lead a life of irresponsibility." Parents who did not guide their children were a part of the problem and contributed to their children becoming "stubborn and rebellious." Two giants of Jewish scholarship further echo this idea. Rabbi Moses Al Sheikh said: "He explains why the Torah insists that parents personally bring their 'stubborn and rebellious son' to the court of justice. In this manner, he says, the parents acknowledge that they are to blame for the way in which their son has turned out. No child becomes intractable from one day to the next. The process begins when the child is at a very early age when many parents, unfortunately, tend to view such behavior as 'just a phase.' This is a mistaken notion, and the parents are now asked to face the fact that they failed their child when he was in the greatest need of their guidance."
Rabbi Ibn Ezra puts it a little bit stronger placing some of the blame on the parents: "He is not prepared to place the burden of responsibility entirely on the child. The son can be justifiably tried and punished for his behaviour only if the conduct of his parents themselves has been beyond reproach. If they did not provide a good example for him to emulate, they have no right to bring him to court for 'stubborn and rebellious' conduct." So what we find is that not only the son is on trial, the parents as well have to demonstrate that they did the right things. If not, no death penalty will ever be inflicted.

In closing this appendix, it has been my goal to broaden the understanding of this particular verse. I hope that this discussion has brought new perspectives to this particular verse. I hope that we will all look underneath the surface of what these texts say and get some other opinions into their meanings. By doing this, we follow the Biblical suggestion to get several witnesses in establishing a Biblical fact. This is the least we can do for the next generations ahead of us.

Milking the Canuck Cash Cow

Canadians are a generous lot, and it's very kind of them to subsidize struggling Third World ministries south of their border. Ministries like Packatollah Dave's Restored Church of God, headquartered in the malaria infested swamps of Wadsworth, Ohio. Kudos go to Stan for laying out the information in an excellent piece of journalism on the AR blog. If you're Canadian, read it and weep.

Tears in Proverbs

This is Part 3 in Samuel Martin's series on corporal punishment and the Bible, and is reproduced from chapter 8 of his book. Samuel writes, "in this chapter, I show a major misunderstanding that many who rely on antiquated Bible versions have developed about spanking children."

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

In the last chapter, we discussed the subject of the use of the word "sh'ol" in Proverbs 23:13-14 and the problems associated with the interpretation that is applied to this verse by many religious teachers who are advocating smacking. This verse in Proverbs 23:13-14 is not the only verse relating to smacking, however, that poses some serious problems when we look at the actual meaning in the original languages. Another key verse along this same line is found in Proverbs 19:18 and is the title for this chapter. Let us look at it. It says: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

On the basis of this verse cited above, numerous advocates of smacking have developed complex doctrines concerning the need for children to cry during and after being spanked. For example, one pastor in his book on child rearing points out that: "The smacking should be administered firmly. It should be painful and it should last until the child's will is broken. It should last until the child is crying, not tears of anger but tears of a broken will. Another author follows the same line of thinking: "After correction, a parent needs to allow a child to cry for a reasonably short amount of time. Then a child should be told to stop crying and be brought under control." Probably one of the most prominent religious advocates of smacking children puts the same thought this way. He says: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of what caused the original tears."

There is one theme that is common throughout the last three quotes that I have given above. It is the word "crying." These advocates of smacking, by using this word, are specifically referring to this passage in the book of Proverbs as their justification for this suggestion. There can be no doubt that this is the case. They are not alone in suggesting this idea. Thousands of pastors and Bible teachers suggest exactly the same thing on the basis of using this single verse as their Biblical authority. There is, however, a problem with this whole idea. Let us look at this verse in Proverbs 19 in greater detail. Before we do that, however, let us place the question of "crying" as it is laid out in the book of Proverbs as a whole in context.

The use of the word "crying" in the book of Proverbs

The book of Proverbs mentions the concept of "crying" on 10 different occasions. Let us look at these individually. First, we find the three usages of the Hebrew word "rah-nan." These are as follows and the corresponding English word is italicised in these texts: "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets." Next, note the next usage: "She crieth at the gates…" Finally, the last usage of this word in Proverbs: "In the transgression of an evil man there is a snare: but the righteous doth sing and rejoice."

What we find these contexts and the others featuring this word Hebrew "rah-nan," is that this word is most often translated into English by the words "sing," "shout," "sang," "cry out," rejoice," "shout aloud for joy," "triumph," and "shouteth." At no time in any text, neither in Proverbs, nor any other Biblical book where this word is used, does this word ever refer to crying in the sense of tears, either of joy or pain.

Next, we find four instances where the concept of "crying" is again mentioned in Proverbs. This concerns the use of the Hebrew word "hah-mah." Let us look at them now. First, we have the following: "She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates:" Next, we have two texts speaking of impious women: "She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house." We also have the following: "A foolish woman is clamorous; she is simple, and knoweth nothing." Finally, note this text: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging…" Now what is interesting about these four texts is that while the original word in Hebrew "hah-mah" is translated by four different words in English that are italicised in the texts above (crieth, loud, clamorous and raging), none of these words or texts relate to the idea of "crying" which brings tears.

We also have two other examples of "crying" found in Proverbs. They are found in the following text. "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard." The first word translated "cry" is in Hebrew "z-gah-kah." This word does occasionally refer to crying, even of children. The second word translated "cry" is the Hebrew word "gah-nah." This word is translated numerous ways in the Hebrew Bible, but never in the sense of "crying" with tears.

So we are left with one final verse that refers to "crying" and it is the verse that this chapter is named after. It is Proverbs 19:18. Let us look at it once again. "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." Once again, I have italicised the word "crying" in the King James Version and it is this verse that, as I said previously, provides the justification for smacking proponents to strongly recommend that children who are spanked be brought to the state of crying with tears.

There is only one problem with this interpretation. It doesn't hold up to even the most simple of examinations of the meaning of the Hebrew words. The word translated "crying" in Proverbs 19:18 is the Hebrew word "mooth." This word is used well over 500 times in the Hebrew Bible and is translated by about 40 different cognate words that all refer and are translated by words relating, without ambiguity or exception (except for this single verse we are here discussing) to the concept of death! Only in this verse did the King James Version translators render this word by the English word "crying." This word has nothing even remotely related to crying that brings tears at all. What we have here is a very bad mistranslation. Modern Bible scholars recognize this fact almost universally. First, the Revised Standard Version, in reference to this verse says: "do not set your heart on his destruction. J. B. Rotherman's excellent translation renders it as follows: "Correct thy son, because there is hope, Yet not so as to slay him …" Finally, in the Interlinear Bible, we have the following: "Chasten your son while there is hope; and do not set your soul on making him die." By correcting the translation, a whole different meaning to the verse arises. The feeling shifts away from harsh, legalistic judgment to one of moderation. It shows that there are actions that parents can and should take to correct behaviour of a wayward child. [within the environment of the Law of Moses as pointed out before.] However, these actions should not be taken to extremes. This is clearly implied by the meaning of this verse. This verse could be argued to be against aggressive forms of punishment. When we look at this verse, the use of the word "hope" is most important. We get a strong indication that the latter portion of the verse points to a situation where hope is now lost. This is certainly in evidence if an uncorrected life leads one down the path of crime, which in the Mosiac system could lead to the death penalty. This seems a much more clear interpretation based upon the context and it is this idea that most Christian authorities assign to this verse. Certainly, no parent would lose hope in a child due to his crying, but one certainly would find oneself in a hopeless situation if his or her child were moving down the path towards death.

Additionally, we find that while there are over 20 Hebrew words that relate to "crying out," "crying aloud," "to cry", etc. not one of these words is found in the whole book of Proverbs.

Not only that, there are six different Hebrew words that refer to the concept of "weeping" which involves tears on numerous occasions. In actual fact, a careful examination of these words will show that they rarely refer to children. One example where one of them does refer to a child concerns the discovery of the baby Moses by Pharaoh's daughter. The text says: "And when she had opened it (the box in which Moses lay), she saw the child: and, behold, a weeping boy." More often though you find these words describing weeping having to do with people weeping over the deaths of loved ones, over deaths in battle, over deaths of holy men or kings and similar situations. The important thing to point out in this context, however, is that these words are conspicuous in the book of Proverbs: conspicuous for their absence! These six Hebrew words translated by "weeping," "wept" and 'weep" are not found once in Proverbs.

Finally, there is only one word in the Bible that is translated and means exactly without exception "tears." This is the Hebrew word "dim-gah." This word means "tears" (as a result from crying or weeping) exactly and this word also does not appear in the whole book of Proverbs even one time.

In summary, looking at the evidence as a whole, the concepts of "crying," "weeping" and "tears" are not discussed within the pages of the book of Proverbs. Based on this evidence, the idea that the Biblical book of Proverbs advises parents or any other person to spank children to induce crying and bring forth tears is without any foundation or basis according to the data found in the Biblical texts.


Part 4 is entitled "Misunderstanding the harshness in Biblical Teachings", and appears later this week.

Brilliant New Truth!

Yes brethren, God has revealed startling new truth.

You've NEVER heard this from Fred Coulter! WHY?

This makes the truth plain, inspiring never-before revealed detail on the birth of the Church of God! Bible prophecy comes alive as yet another jigsaw piece is placed in the tapestry of mixed metaphors.

CLICK and be amazed.

Mark Armstrong on Ratzinger

On a related theme, Bob Thiel quotes Mark Armstrong thusly:

Can you believe what an absolutely brash, insulting, ridiculous statement came out of the Vatican late last week? And yet hardly a peep out of anyone about it. No salvation without acceptance of papal authority? Well, that’s preposterous!

Well, actually that's not what the statement said. Yes, Papa Ratzinger slapped non-Catholic churches around, patronized the Orthodox and launched spitballs at the Protestants, but there was nothing about no salvation without papal authority. The current Bishop of Rome may not be subtle, but the Vatican statement was a lot more nuanced than Mark Armstrong indicates.

Not a peep? Hardly. I followed reaction from Reformed, Orthodox, Lutheran and Coptic Christians in the wake of the statement's release. Not a bunch of happy campers to say the least! The thing is, the reactions were controlled and - for the most part - well thought out. Mark apparently expects these various Christian leaders to stand up on soap boxes and yell invective. Maybe Proverbs 15:1 ("a soft answer turneth away wrath") hasn't been highlighted in his King James Bible.

The really hilarious thing is that Ratzinger's display of foot in mouth is nothing compared to the intolerant, belligerent, uncharitable, self righteous, arrogant wall of rhetoric spewed out by Mark's Grandpa and Dad against other Christians. Talk about a double standard.

Mark goes on:

Similar claims are being made by some self-styled Church of God leaders. Have they no shame at all? And what of those who buy into their megalomaniacal rants? Have they taken leave of reason? The whole thing is sickening, particularly where it concerns the name and the memory of HWA... Pity the poor, abused, intimidated people who’ve been ensnared by the abuse of people’s love and respect for name of HWA. Lucky for his “successors” he’s not here to witness their false claims or their tyranny.

What can one say? Herb was the quintessential megalomaniac. Flurry and co. are only being true to his example. Mark wants to reclaim Herb as a symbol of Christian freedom?! Gimme a break!

The Bible and Spanking

This is Part 2 of Samuel Martin's series on corporal punishment.

There are few Biblical subjects where more misunderstanding exists among Christians and Child Rights advocates today than that of spanking children. This book seeks to increase the level of understanding about this issue. It shows that:

Fact: The Bible does not teach that spanking a child will save him from Hell.

Fact: The Bible does not teach that spanking a child should bring tears.

Fact: In Bible times, the texts concerning spanking children found in Proverbs were not applied to young children under the age of about 10 years!

Fact: Many respected Christian theologians including Dr. Karl Barth and Rev. Dwight Moody rejected spanking children.

Fact: Many Biblically conservative Jewish Rabbis, who have the Old Testament as their Holy Scripture, reject spanking children today.

Fact: The main Christian advocates for spanking children now are not usually trained Christian theologians teaching in universities, but most often are conservative fundamentalist Christian pastors, Christian politicians, Christian psychologists, lay church members and Christian school leaders.

Fact: Well meaning Christian advocates of spanking children have developed doctrines surrounding what they believe the Bible teaches about spanking children which are not found in the Bible at all.

Fact: Well-meaning Children's Rights activists, who are not trained Bible scholars, have entered this debate attacking the Bible with disastrous results.

Features of this Volume

353 Separate Biblical Texts Referenced
82 Separate References from Hebrew and Christian Scholars
39 Authoritative Biblical Reference Works Utilized
Key new information revealed from an early Egyptian text which is also found today in the Biblical book of Proverbs concerning spanking

ISBN Number 13 digit 978-0-9785339-08
ISBN Number 10 digit 0-9785339-09

To see the scholars who have reviewed my book, please go to my website.


Part 3 will be an excerpt from the book.

Deathly Hallows

In case you've just emerged from a hermit's cave somewhere, the news is that the final Harry Potter book has just been released. I was in the local Warehouse branch (the NZ equivalent of Wal-Mart) when, at one minute past eleven yesterday morning, the checkouts were mobbed by eager readers of all ages. It was a sight to gladden the heart of any teacher.

I'm a big fan of kid's literature. With the current discussion on child rearing, my modest contribution is to encourage any and all adults to enrich their children's lives with a love of the printed word. Neither computer games nor movies will do it half as well (no, not even blogs!) Books light the fuse of imagination and get kids (and adults!) thinking, predicting, evaluating and forming their own opinions. Fiction is a safe way to look out on the world through someone else's eyes, confront scary situations, discover and explore values.

Those are life skills beyond price.