Pffffff.
Think they might ever make another Star Wars RPG like kotor or kotor 2 (/old republic)? Doesnt have to be kotor but if its star wars and has same bioware system as the other rpgs it would be freaking awesome news.
I know people really like mass effect series but i actually think kotor 1 and 2 and dragon age are even better anyone else think so?
It os brand new campaign. You can import your character from Dragon Age Origins or do it with a new character where they choose the ending of the first game for you.
is there a retail edition of the game? I'm not sure if they include first campaign as well as i just bought the first game and then used PSN to egt the expansion.
Out of curiosity is this first time you will be playing Dragion Age?
DAO:Awakening is a great thing. Yeah, you get a whole new story line (not the base game, but Awakening has its own) and you can import your character.
This really doesn't need a spoiler since its on the back of the box:
Your character is the new commander of the Grey Wardens in Ferelden. So if you import a guy, you get to interact with characters from the first (some show back up at times, some only have a letter (you'll see)) and its quite awesome. If you married Alistair you get a bit more of dialog from him when he meets you at the beginning.
Oh, and search the marsh completely. And get Vigilance.
The marsh has an awesome suit of heavy armor and Vigilance is a custom weapon that you get if you get all the materials.
http://kirtzono.blogspot.com/2008/06/toevah-heh.html
DS, this has interesting things to say about the "abomination" lines in leviticus.
Sorry for the double post.
Anyway, these two blogposts actually make the argument implicit in the link above:
1. Genesis 43:32 has a curious observation about the meal that Joseph ordered to be prepared for his brothers during their second visit. Joseph, still masquerading as an Egyptian — he recognizes his brothers, but they don’t yet know who he is — has a meal prepared for his guests. But Joseph eats alone, not with his brothers, because for Egyptians to dine with Hebrews is “a to’evah for the Egyptians.”2. Another Egyptian to’evah, according to Genesis 46:34, are shepherds. Joseph coaches his family to tell Pharoah that they are shepherds so that they can settle in Goshen, “because every shepherd is an Egyptian to’evah.” It should be noted that of course Pharoah had shepherds of his own, and the text (Genesis 47:6) even confirms this, but the truth of the statement isn’t the point. What’s important is how Joseph connects “Egyptian to’evah” to his plan.
[...]So Joseph’s dinner arrangements, shepherds, and the sacrifices of the Hebrews have two things in common. The first is obvious. All three are called a to’evah, apparently something undesirable in some way. The second, less obvious thing they have in common is, I think, a clue to what exactly to’evah means: they are all either a to’evah for the Egyptians or of the Egyptians.
According to these texts, a to’evah is culturally determined. Something can be a to’evah in one culture but not in another. So the Hebrew sacrifices are a to’evah for the Egyptians, but, obviously, hugely encouraged in Hebrew society; shepherding is similar. And it was only in Egyptian culture that Egyptians couldn’t dine with Hebrews.
The usual translation of to’evah is “abomination,” which, according to a few dictionaries that I checked, is pretty accurate. An “abomination” in English, they claim, is a relative matter, like the aesthetics of a work of art. But that’s not how I use the word (to the extent that I use it at all). I don’t think in terms of “an abomination for you but fine for me” or vice versa. I tend to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with something that is an “abomination.”
hen the NLT introduces the word “sin” for the Hebrew to’evah, I think it has left the realm of translation behind, replacing it with their understanding of modern dogma.The Hebrew word to’evah occurs often enough that it’s not hard to figure out what it means. For example, in Genesis 43:32, the Egyptians don’t eat with the Hebrews because it is a to’evah for the Egyptians. Similarly, “every shepherd” is a to’evah to the Egyptians according to Genesis 46:34. Deuteronomy 14:3 helps us out further: “Do not eat any to’evah”; from context the to’evah is unkosher animals. Proverbs 21:27 teaches that the sacrifice of the wicked is a to’evah. In the moving lament in Psalm 88, verse 9 (also numbered verse 8, and in the LXX numbered Psalm 87:9) includes the woe that God has made the author a to’evah to his acquaintances.
All of this evidence — and more — points in the direction of “undesirable thing” for to’evah. The standard translation “abomination” is probably mostly right. (I sometimes wonder if “taboo” was included in the meaning.)
And it seems that the authors of the NLT knew this. In the very similar text of Leviticus 20:13, also about a man having sex with another man, the NLT translates the resulting to’evah as “detestable act.”
triple post:
Originally posted by -Pr-
It won't matter, though, if Supergirl isn't shown to be stronger in the comics. Writer statements are generally only really valid (at least on vs forums and the like) if the comics actually back them up.Like Loeb for example. He stated that he wrote Superman as being DC's most powerful superhero in an interview. His comics reflected that, so we can tie the two together.