How can anyone believe the Bible, when it contains many contradictions and fabrications?

by **Ivan** Sat May 19, 2012 1:58 pm

Christians often tell us that the Bible is the “word of God”. Yet it is a seriously flawed book. As a historical source it is poor, since it contains no primary evidence, having been written a long time after the so-called events which it describes. Far from being the word of any supernatural being, it’s a collection of writings by men chosen by men for inclusion in a book. For example, there were around a dozen ‘gospels’, yet only four were chosen to be in the Bible. Hardly surprising when you see what was left out. Thomas’s gospel contains numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of a mischievous fairy, transforming his playmates into goats, or turning mud into sparrows, or giving his father a hand with the carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood.

One of the most unconvincing aspects of the Bible is the fact that what was included in it contains many contradictions. When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus’ death, nobody knew where he was born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. In the light of this prophecy, John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: “Others said: ‘He is the Messiah!’ But others said: ‘The Messiah will not come from Galilee! The scripture says that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David and will be born in Bethlehem, the town where David lived.’” (John 7:41-42)

Matthew and Luke treat the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all, but they get him there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth long after the birth of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents. On the other hand, Luke acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. So how did he get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go “to his own city”. Joseph was “of the house and lineage of David” and therefore had to go to “the city of David, which is called Bethlehem”. That must have seemed like a good solution. Yet David, if he existed, lived nearly a thousand years before Mary and Joseph, so why would the Romans have required Joseph to go to the city where a remote ancestor had lived a millennium earlier?

Luke mentioned events that historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius - a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole - but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod’s death. Luke’s story is historically impossible and just reveals that he was economical with the truth in his desire to fulfil the prophecy of Micah.

All the essential features of the Jesus legend, including the star in the east, the virgin birth, the veneration of the baby by kings, the miracles, the execution, the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed from other religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East region. Matthew’s desire to fulfil messianic prophecies (descent from David, birth in Bethlehem) for the benefit of Jewish readers came into headlong collision with Luke’s desire to adapt Christianity for the Gentiles by using the familiar buttons of pagan Hellenistic religions (virgin birth, worship by kings etc). The resulting contradictions are glaring but are consistently overlooked by the faithful.

Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’s descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations (Matthew 1:17), while Luke has forty-one generations (Luke 3:23-31)? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.

Matthew 27:9-10 claims to fulfil a saying that it attributes to Jeremiah. The saying actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13. The gospels also contradict one another outright. John 19:14 tells us that Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover meal was eaten. Mark 14 says it happened the day after. So the Bible can’t even be consistent about the two most important aspects of Jesus’ life – his birth and his death - yet so many people are so blinded by their faith to take it as 'gospel truth'. Are you taken in by it?

by ROB Sat May 19, 2012 2:22 pm

How can anyone believe the Bible…?

By proceeding step by step, starting at the beginning (b’r’shyth).

First step: A “who/what – when/where – why/how” comparison of Genesis 1:1 and Bing Bang.

1. Genesis 1:1, brief exposition:

English, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Hebrew, “B’r’shyth bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets” (Genesis 1:1).

Who: Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power, by inference, incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
What, bara, created, by inference, created from nothing, et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, the heavens (everything other than the earth), and the earth (everything but the heavens), in total, everything, thus bara… et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets, created everything from nothing.
When/Where: B’r’shyth, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, by inference, (a) at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.
Why: Addressed by Genesis 1:2 and following, not addressed by Genesis 1:1.
How: Not addressed by Genesis 1:1.

2. Big Bang, brief exposition:

Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, exploded the universe into existence from nothing.

Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing
When/Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, by inference, (a) at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.
Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.
How: Addressed by the Big Bang data set.

by snowyflake Sat May 19, 2012 4:01 pm

2. Big Bang, brief exposition:

Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, exploded the universe into existence from nothing.

Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.

What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing

When/Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, by inference, (a) at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.

Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.

How: Addressed by the Big Bang data set.

The Big Bang theory doesn't have a who, Rock. You are anthropomorphising the Big Bang theory? Your incomprehensible, immeasurable power is a what not a who. The bombs that destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima were incomprehensible power but the power was most certainly not a 'who'.

by astra Sat May 19, 2012 4:27 pm

http://news.uk.msn.com/photos/special-photo-galleries/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=155930455&page=12

The above Supernova pic shows the gas cloud, and the acceleration of 11 million miles an hour, makes the impossible and the mind blowing feasable.

by ROB Sat May 19, 2012 5:39 pm

snowyflake wrote:
2. Big Bang, brief exposition:

Incomprehensible, immeasurable power, at/from “the singularity”, exploded the universe into existence from nothing.

Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.

What, exploded everything (the university) into existence from nothing

When/Where: “the singularity”, the beginning, at the beginning, at the point of beginning, by inference, (a) at the beginning point of everything, (b) when everything begins.

Why: Not addressed by Big Bang.

How: Addressed by the Big Bang data set.
The Big Bang theory doesn't have a who, Rock. You are anthropomorphising the Big Bang theory?

Your incomprehensible, immeasurable power is a what not a who.

Au contraire, my Canadian skeptic. Allow me to explain.

In the discipline of communications, who/what, when/where, and why/how are the three sets of questions one answers as one exposits a story, an idea, or pretty much anything.

The “who”, in grammatical terms, is the subject noun and its modifiers, and the “what is the action (passive, “middle voice”, or active; past, present, or future) or state of being (past, present, or future). For instance, in the sentence, “The big, black, ugly, shaggy dog with the collar chased the cat”, it goes like this:

Who? “The big, black, ugly, shaggy dog with the collar.”
What? “chased the cat” (action, active, past).

Here, the “who” is the subject noun, “dog”, and its multiple modifiers, including the prepositional phrase “with the collar.” Although the subject noun is not a person, it and its modifiers are the “who.”

One more example. In the sentence, “The stately Canadian National Tower in downtown Toronto is the tallest free-standing structure in the Western Hemisphere”, it goes like this:

Who? “The stately Canadian National Tower in downtown Toronto.”
What? “is the tallest free-standing structure in the Western Hemisphere” (state of being, present).

Here, the “who” is the subject noun, “Canadian National Tower” and its modifiers. Although the subject noun is an inanimate object, it and its modifiers are the “who.”

In Bing Bang, the “who” is an indeterminate power which is neither person, animal, or inanimate object; in fact, it’s a “thing, of a sort (“a noun is a person, place, or thing”), primarily because it cannot be a person or a place.

In Genesis 1:1, the “who” is likewise an indeterminate power which is neither person, animal, inanimate object, or place.

Genesis 1:1’s “who” is identical to Big Bang’s “who”; incomprehensible, immeasurable power. Neither Big Bang nor Genesis 1:1 go any further.

by snowyflake Sat May 19, 2012 6:09 pm

hey Rock

Sorry. I accept I am not as educated or erudite as some. But 'who' always implies an entity or existence. The CN Tower in my estimation has always been a 'what' not a 'who'.

But you are telling us that the indeterminate power of the Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 is God and is the 'who'. 'God' by your reasoning is the indeterminate power and is a 'who'. Indeterminate power is a 'what'. If it's indeterminate you cannot ascribe existence to it. You cannot therefore make it God because it suits you or you choose to believe it is so.

I suddenly feel like reading Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who. Take care Rock. Hope you and yours are well. sunny

by ROB Sat May 19, 2012 8:21 pm

snowyflake wrote:
hey Rock

Hey yourself, Snowy.

snowyflake wrote:
Sorry. I accept I am not as educated or erudite as some.

You say this to the dude who was still stuck in chem lab at sunset? Yeah, right!

snowyflake wrote:
But 'who' always implies an entity or existence. The CN Tower in my estimation has always been a 'what' not a 'who'.

It’s a different discipline, communications/journalism, which I “got” from a close friend. If you can remember Walter Cronkite, it’s the “top down” style of reporting once practiced by serious journalists that has now all but disappeared from American USV reporting. Thank God for the BBC World Report.

“Today, in Toronto, Ontario, the CN Tower celebrated its thirty-sixth birthday.” That could be a lead sentence of a BBC story. Who? The CN Tower. What? Celebrated its thirty-sixth birthday. When? Today. Where? Toronto, Ontario.

It’s a bit confusing at first, but once you get the “hang” of it, analyzing written text becomes easier. I’ve used “who/what, when/where, how/why” to knock out standardized tests reading and writing sections for years.

The important thing to keep in mind is that “who” in communications/journalism is the subject noun (and its modifiers), and “a noun is a person, place, or thing.” CN Tower is a thing.

(Actually, for the purists, a noun names a person, place, or thing.)

snowyflake wrote:
But you are telling us that the indeterminate power of the Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 is God and is the 'who'. 'God' by your reasoning is the indeterminate power and is a 'who'. Indeterminate power is a 'what'.

See above.

snowyflake wrote:
If it's indeterminate you cannot ascribe existence to it.

It ascribes existence to itself by its works; namely, causing everything to explode into existence from nothing.

c=mv: I learned the “works” of “c”, momentum, at ten years old when my bicycle and I were hit by a car. It was “c” that propelled me maybe fifteen feet into the air, which ironically may have saved my life. It was “c’ that demolished my bicycle as I came to rest on the parkway between street and sidewalk and watched my bike crumbling under the front tires and front tend of the car.

But guess what? I never saw “c”, I never heard “c”, I never smelled “c”, I never tasted “c’, and I actually never felt “c”, though I definitely felt its effects. Was “c” real? You betcha!

There is nothing, then everything is exploded into existence by incomprehensible power. Is incomprehensible power real? You betcha!

snowyflake wrote:
You cannot therefore make it God because it suits you or you choose to believe it is so.

Cart before horse. Do you follow incomprehensible, immeasurable power in Bing Bang and Genesis 1:1? If you do, I’ll speak to that (above) in a future post or message.

snowyflake wrote:
I suddenly feel like reading Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who. Take care Rock. Hope you and yours are well.

I feel like taking a Tylenol, whatever its generic name! Watch out for the spiders in the garden.

by **Jill Segger** Sat May 19, 2012 9:33 pm

Taking the Bible literally seems to me to be a form of idolatory. It is surely to be seen as a series of narratives stretching over a long period of time when the relationship between recording fact/making of allusive illustration was very different from that of our own time. It is a document of the evolution of thinking about the 'out there', a record of how we develop our thinking about the Divine and our relationship with it. And of how we learn from error and cruelty to move towards truth and compassion.

At a Quaker Meeting, the Bible shares the table with 'Quaker Faith and Practice' - a record of Quaker experience over three and a half centuries. This is because we don't believe that writing and reflecting on the Divine ended when thr last full stop was put to the 'scriptures'. The Bible is not 'holy' - ot at leat, no 'holier' than all the other expreriences and reflections of human kind seeking understanding.

Now I guess some 'Bible believing Christians' will get rather vexed at me....

by astra Sat May 19, 2012 10:17 pm

Thank you Jill.

In my 30 years here in the North East, 2 writers seem to have been ignored totally by the Church and by the teaching proffession

the Venerable Bede, who was near here at Jarrow. Yes there is the Bede Experience next his church in Jarrow, (but is rarely advertised on the holiday blurb,) showing life in that time, and he even has a Train Station named after him! (Tyneside Metro). He also takes in Durham Cathedral, Finchale Abbey, Jarrow and more spots on his way to Lindisfarne. Ask people about the Lindisfarne Chronicles, and they look at you as if you have suddenly grown 3 heads!

Next is the Scottish Monk, Blind Harry, so ignored he has passed into obscurity, seems to me only us "educated" Christians dismiss our past.

by trevorw2539 Sun May 20, 2012 12:15 am

Ivan. Matthew started his narrative after the birth of Jesus. His readers already knew Jewish expectations. Luke starts by setting the scene for his Greek reader.
Joseph lived in Nazareth with Mary. Before the journey to Bethlehem and on return from Egypt.
We've been through this before. Luke got his dates wrong.
Ivan quote
Luke’s story is historically impossible and just reveals that he was economical with the truth in his desire to fulfil the prophecy of Micah.

Why on earth would Luke need to fulfil the prophecy if Micah?
When will you people learn. Luke was writing to his friend, a Greek. We have his letter - book, and we read it. It was not written for us in particular. That's why it is different from the other books/gospels.

Geneaologies.
There are various reasons why these geneaologies do not agree.
One is that Matthews list is not a family geneaology. It starts with the list of Patriarchs, then a list of kings of Israel, and ends with ordinary people up till the time of Christ. Family, rise and fall.
Why? who knows.

Luke's list is of families.

Another reason for variances could be the problem of Leverite and Go-el marriages. Loss of birthright. Can go into them if needed. This could mean that Martthew traces Jesus biological lineage, Luke Jesus legal lineage.

Another theory is that if Jesus were not Joseph's son then the lineage, unusually, would be of Mary's line, back through Heli. Jewish ways are not our ways. Will explain if required.

Ivan quote.
Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.

But Jesus is descended from David through Mary's bloodline. Acceptable in a Patriarchal society under certain circumstances. i.e. no son.

Ivanquote
Matthew 27:9-10 claims to fulfil a saying that it attributes to Jeremiah. The saying actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13
Again this is to the Jews who will know that Jeremiah also bought a field.

Passover meal. If you've got 6 pages and 2 hours to spare we can go into it. It all depends when Jesus and his disciples actually ate the Passover.
How long is the Passover? 1 day. How long is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 7 days. The Passover followed directly after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. By the time of Christ it had all become known as the 'Passover'. It depends also on the interpretation of Greek words. As I'm not a linguist I couldn't give you an authoritative explanation.

Anyway I'm off to bed. Sleep

Just seen Jill's post. I agree with not taking the Bible literally. But I also think that many of the 'contradictions' are because we do not know how to think like the readers of old, or understand the language used. There are mistakes and contradictions as with other books, but we don't throw it on the scrapheap but try to understand how to read it, see what we can learn from it. Apart from religion it contains many words of wisdom that have been handed down to this day.

by ROB Sun May 20, 2012 7:10 am

Ivan wrote:
Matthew 27:9-10 claims to fulfil a saying that it attributes to Jeremiah. The saying actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13.

Greek Bible:

Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord directed me.”

Matthew 27:9-10

Hebrew Bible:

So I pastured the flock doomed to slaughter, hence the afflicted of the flock. And I took for myself two staffs: the one I called Favor and the other I called Union; so I pastured the flock. Then I annihilated the three shepherds in one month, for my soul was impatient with them, and their soul also was weary of me. Then I said, “I will not pasture you. What is to die, let it die, and what is to be annihilated, let it be annihilated; and let those who are left eat one another’s flesh.” I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples. So it was broken on that day, and thus the afflicted of the flock who were watching me realized that it was the word of the Lord. (12) I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Then I cut in pieces my second staff Union, to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Zechariah 11:7-14

Hebrew Bible:

And Jeremiah said, “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle is coming to you, saying, “Buy for yourself my field which is at Anathoth, for you have the right of redemption to buy it.”’ Then Hanamel my uncle’s son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the Lord and said to me, ‘Buy my field, please, that is at Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for you have the right of possession and the redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.

(9) “I bought the field which was at Anathoth from Hanamel my uncle’s son, and I weighed out the silver for him, seventeen shekels of silver. (10) I signed and sealed the deed, and called in witnesses, and weighed out the silver on the scales. Then I took the deeds of purchase, both the sealed copy containing the terms and conditions and the open copy; and I gave the deed of purchase to Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, in the sight of Hanamel my uncle’s son and in the sight of the witnesses who signed the deed of purchase, before all the Jews who were sitting in the court of the guard. And I commanded Baruch in their presence, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Take these deeds, this sealed deed of purchase and this open deed, and put them in an earthenware jar, that they may last a long time.” For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Houses and fields and vineyards will again be bought in this land.”’

Jeremiah 32:6-15

by ROB Sun May 20, 2012 10:29 am

Ivan wrote:
Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’s descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations (Matthew 1:17), while Luke has forty-one generations (Luke 3:23-31)?

Greek Bible:

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son¹ of David, the son of Abraham.

Abraham begat² Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king.

And David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; and Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Matthew 1:1-17

Greek Bible:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son¹ of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Luke 3:23-38

son, huios, son, distinguished from teknon, child. Huios principally indicates the relationship between offspring and parents rather than simply the birth of the offspring, as indicated by teknon.
begat, gennaō, regenerated, brought forth, made. Gennaō also indicates relationship between parents and offspring rather than simply the birth of the offspring.

by **Ivan** Sun May 20, 2012 4:09 pm

trevorw2539. I do wish you’d learn to use that quote button, as it would make who said what a lot clearer in your posts. It’s quite simple (or I wouldn’t be able to do it!):-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

Lots of books contain wisdom, but we don’t give them ‘holy’ status because of that. I haven’t suggested that the Bible should be “thrown on the scrapheap”, but under no circumstances should it be taken literally. Not only are its contents contradictory, but if we followed its instructions we would condone murder. For example, Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says that if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, then he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep.

Most of your response to my opening posting comes across as excuses cobbled together for the many apparent contradictions. I accept that problems can occur in translation, but a book, which as you admit, contains flaws, is of little use to anyone seeking ‘the truth’.

Rock. Matthew 27:9-10 refers to thirty pieces of silver. As I said, so does Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah 32:9 refers to seventeen pieces of silver. And as I also said, Matthew 1:17 tells us of 28 generations from David (I didn’t mention Abraham) to Joseph, while Luke (3:23-31) has 41, and the names hardly overlap.

by oftenwrong Sun May 20, 2012 6:02 pm

I have personal experience of knowing a charming man who placed his total faith in a particular printed work.

Robin was incidentally a keen hot-air balloonist, and travelled widely around the world with his wife as crew. Wherever he was, Thailand or Tunisia he relied implicitly upon the one document for navigation, and swore he never got lost. It was a map showing the location of "Little Chef" restaurants.

How's that for Belief?

by trevorw2539 Sun May 20, 2012 8:34 pm

Ivan wrote:trevorw2539. I do wish you’d learn to use that quote button, as it would make who said what a lot clearer in your posts. It’s quite simple (or I wouldn’t be able to do it!):-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

Lots of books contain wisdom, but we don’t give them ‘holy’ status because of that. I haven’t suggested that the Bible should be “thrown on the scrapheap”, but under no circumstances should it be taken literally. Not only are its contents contradictory, but if we followed its instructions we would condone murder. For example, Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says that if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, then he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep.

Most of your response to my opening posting comes across as excuses cobbled together for the many apparent contradictions. I accept that problems can occur in translation, but a book, which as you admit, contains flaws, is of little use to anyone seeking ‘the truth’.

Rock. Matthew 27:9-10 refers to thirty pieces of silver. As I said, so does Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah 32:9 refers to seventeen pieces of silver. And as I also said, Matthew 1:17 tells us of 28 generations from David (I didn’t mention Abraham) to Joseph, while Luke (3:23-31) has 41, and the names hardly overlap.

I have never given the Bible 'Holy' status. If you read it with understanding there is much truth in it, and there are errors.

I expect you do think my responses are excuses. I find that many people 'grab' at these errors to support their claim that the Bible is worthless/pointless, without ever bothering to wonder how, or why, these occurred. Even whether they are really errors.

I can show you an interesting 'resurrection' in the Bible. In one chapter a King Hadedazer is slain. 2 chapters later, miracle of miracles, he's back. cheers

Reading the whole episode in one you can see the poor old scribe had obviously had a noggin too many the night before and got things round the wrong way. drunken

The Old Testament was not written for you and I. It was written for a nation, about a nation. It was written in a time far remote from our time. In civilisations far removed from our civilisation. But civilisations which were already practising crude forms of medicine we have today, and shaping our civilisation in various ways like writing, maths, simple tools and levers etc. etc.
The New Testament was written by ordinary men, for ordinary men. Humans are fallible. I don't throw away a bunch of grapes because one is not edible.

Jeremiah refers to 17 shekels of silver. Weight - not coins.

Matthew gives us 28 generation from David to Joseph. Luke gives us 21, the rest being David's forebears. Matthews list is in geneaological order, Luke's is in reverse.

Deuteronomy 22 says that the men of HER town must stone her to death. Not her husband. The implication is that she has brought shame on HER family and HER town. Plus, of course, the nation. Not acceptable to us today. In an earlier code she would have been taken and thrown in a river. If she made it to the bank she was innocent, if she didn't she was guilty. Life was tough in those days. The Bible laid out rules and regulations for, and of, it's time. Few would condone such action today.

The problem is that while ordinary 'religious' people get on with their ordinary, everyday lives, it is the bigots and fanatics that get all the headlines.

by trevorw2539 Sun May 20, 2012 9:28 pm

Ivan quote Matthew 27:9-10 claims to fulfil a saying that it attributes to Jeremiah. The saying actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13.

Not so. It is only partly quoted. Matthew is bringing together passages based on words/themes they have in common. He puts together at least 2 texts from Jeremiah with the one in Zechariah and one in Exodus to show a 'foreshadowing' of Judas actions.
I believe, and RoC may be able to confirm this with his knowledge of Hebrew, that this was one of the rules of interpretation laid down. And acceptable in Matthews time.
The fact that he uses 'Jeremy' - Jeremiah - is probably the fact that 'Jeremy' was the 'senior' prophet.

by oftenwrong Sun May 20, 2012 10:39 pm

It's probably no coincidence that the chosen source of so much personal belief is riddled with contradictions.

by polyglide Mon May 21, 2012 3:01 pm

The problem with seemingly contradictions is that as in a jigsaw there is only one place where any text will fit in harmony with the rest.

The seek and ye shall find method should be approached when thinking one thing contradicts another.

The main considerations should also involve human error and errors in translation but as I have said previously the events prior to the coming of Jesus have no bearing on the demands on present day followers of God through Jesus.

by ROB Tue May 22, 2012 7:32 am

Ivan wrote:
Rock. Matthew 27:9-10 refers to thirty pieces of silver. As I said, so does Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah 32:9 refers to seventeen pieces of silver.

Ivan,

Jeremiah 32:9 does not refer to seventeen pieces of silver. Please join me in reading the text together.

Hebrew Bible:

And Jeremiah said, “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle is coming to you, saying, “Buy for yourself my field which is at Anathoth, for you have the right of redemption to buy it.”’ Then Hanamel my uncle’s son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the Lord and said to me, ‘Buy my field, please, that is at Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for you have the right of possession and the redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.

(9) “I bought the field which was at Anathoth from Hanamel my uncle’s son, and I weighed out the silver for him, seventeen shekels of silver. (10) I signed and sealed the deed, and called in witnesses, and weighed out the silver on the scales. Then I took the deeds of purchase, both the sealed copy containing the terms and conditions and the open copy; and I gave the deed of purchase to Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, in the sight of Hanamel my uncle’s son and in the sight of the witnesses who signed the deed of purchase, before all the Jews who were sitting in the court of the guard. And I commanded Baruch in their presence, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Take these deeds, this sealed deed of purchase and this open deed, and put them in an earthenware jar, that they may last a long time.” For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Houses and fields and vineyards will again be bought in this land.”’

Jeremiah 32:6-15

As can be seen by reading the text for ourselves, a shekel is a measure of weight, not a “piece”, not a coin. In fact, in Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC, a shekel was about 180 grains.

By circa 33 AD, coins were used throughout the region of Roman hegemony. I’ve not a clue as to the weight of the thirty pieces (coins) of silver spoken if in Matthew 27:9-10.

Greek Bible:

Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord directed me.”

Matthew 27:9-10

trevorw2539 wrote:
Matthew is bringing together passages based on words/themes they have in common. He puts together at least 2 texts from Jeremiah with the one in Zechariah and one in Exodus to show a 'foreshadowing' of Judas actions.

I believe, and RoC may be able to confirm this with his knowledge of Hebrew, that this was one of the rules of interpretation laid down.

Trevor,

I agree, based upon my study rather than my opinion. Jews (sons of Y’srael and Judah who survived in Judah/Judea, hence the name) of Jesus’ time were awaiting Moshiach, Messiah: Matthew pointed to the Hebrew Bible, in this instance the Prophets, to show that those things which occurred, including Judas’ actions, were, as you’ve said, foreshadowed by the Prophets.

Ivan and Trevor, I’ve reprinted that entire section of Jeremiah, which I believe one must understand (1) in its entirety, (2) in its context, and (3) as the context of Jeremiah 32:9-10, in order to see Jeremiah 32:9-10’s connection to Matthew 27:9-10 as referenced by Matthew.

by ROB Tue May 22, 2012 5:53 pm

Ivan wrote:
Rock… And as I also said, Matthew 1:17 tells us of 28 generations from David (I didn’t mention Abraham) to Joseph, while Luke (3:23-31) has 41, and the names hardly overlap.

Matthew and Luke mention Abraham; I’ve quoted each of their genealogies in full. I’ve four great-grandfathers. I am the son of each great-grandfather.

Simon (great-grandfather) begat Phillip (grandfather) begat Thomas (father) begat Rock.

Simon begat Phillip begat Thomas begat Rock. Four (4) generations. Rock is the son of Simon.
Reginald (great-grandfather) begat Mabel (grandmother) begat Thomas (father) begat Rock.

Reginald begat Thomas begat Rock. Three (3) generations. Rock is the son of Reginald.
Charles (great-grandfather) begat Phillip (grandfather) begat Irene (mother) begat Rock.

Charles begat Phillip begat Rock. Three (3) generations. Rock is the son of Charles.
Edward (great-grandfather) begat Nancy (grandmother) begat Irene (mother) begat Rock.

Edward begat Rock. Two (2) generations. Rock is the son of Edward.

Jesus bar Joseph and David bar Jesse lived in Y’srael, a tiny country; thus, the occurrence of the phenomenon illustrated below seems probable.

Let’s backup one generation.

Horace (great-great-grandfather) begat Simon (great-grandfather) begat Phillip (grandfather) begat Thomas (father) begat Rock.

Horace begat Simon begat Phillip begat Thomas begat Rock. Five (5) generations. Rock is the son of Horace.
Horace (great-great-grandfather) begat Penelope (great-grandmother), who with Edward begat Nancy (grandmother) begat Irene (mother) begat Rock.

Horace begat Rock. Two (2) generations. Rock is the son of Horace.

Two dissimilar genealogies, Horace to Rock. Two dissimilar genealogies, David to Jesus?

by oftenwrong Tue May 22, 2012 10:21 pm

The Hebrew word yalad for begat is not used in the 1 Chronicles passage, and Genesis 15:16 is misquoted. Genesis states that “in the fourth generation” the children of Israel would leave Egypt—not that there would be a maximum of four generations. For this prophecy in Genesis to be fulfilled, some of the fourth generation would be in the exodus from Egypt—and they were. Exodus 6 lists the generations from Levi to Moses, showing that Moses and Aaron were in the fourth generation. Therefore the passage in 1 Chronicles cannot be used to prove that the Hebrew word for begat can skip a generation.

by ROB Wed May 23, 2012 12:46 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
(from another thread)

Rather than blame people in general for their attitude I would suggest… [looking] at the behaviour of the Church over the last 2 millenia. It has not been a very good example of Christian love or forgiveness. For at least 1500 years it held it adherents in ritualistic ceremony and dogma. It refused the right to read the Bible to the general public, mainly by having it in Latin. Plus the fact that people could not read. Not forgetting the 'in-fighting' of course.

Can you blame people for mistrusting 'religion'.

Snowflake.
I do not subscribe to the belief that most wars in history have been religious. Most have been about territory, power and possessions. Only in 'recent' history have religious wars become a major factor.

Trevor,

Accurate synopsis.

“The Church” (uppercase), actually, “The Churches” after circa 1500 AD, have taken on a name, “church”, capitalized it, created “establishments of religion” about the capitalized name, and issued countless dogmas in its name.

This has been done in direct contradiction to Jesus’ teachings and commands. To his then eleven disciples soon to be apostles he commanded, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have taught you.” To a crowd of 1st Century dogmatists he taught, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” “The Churches” capital “C” have seldom taught those who seek YHVH Elohim through Y’shua Moshiach that the truth shall set them free.

None of these “establishments of religion” are the ecclesia of Y’shua Moshiach, the church of Jesus the Christ, who taught in diametric opposition to man-instituted dogma. In fact, “listen” to the response of John and Peter to a council of men’s command, an establishment of religion’s command, that they abdicate freedom to follow their consciences under Y’shua who they loved:

Greek Bible:

As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.

On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?”

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead - by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply.

But when they had ordered them to leave the Council, they began to confer with one another, saying, “What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.”

And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed unto you more than unto God, you be the judge, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no basis on which to punish them, because of the people, for they were all glorifying God for what had happened.

Acts 4:1-3, 5-21

Snowy,

One person stands out in my mind when speaking of wars “in the name of religion.” That person is Constantine, the emperor who usurped Christianity to further his own goals. Constantine’s example has been the pattern through the ages insofar as “The Churches” capital “C” are concerned.

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:20 am

Thought for the day:

Adam Eve Apple

Those three words are enough for anyone to identify the relevant part of Genesis, but the last one of those words does not appear in any known version of the Bible. The description is always "fruit" of the Tree of Knowledge.

So why do we have such a strong identification with the word "apple" in this particular context?

by Shirina Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:19 pm

Probably because an apple is more familiar to Westerners ... more so than a pomegranate, which is what some Biblical scholars think the forbidden fruit actually was. How they know that ... *shrug*

by trevorw2539 Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:02 pm

Shirina wrote:Probably because an apple is more familiar to Westerners ... more so than a pomegranate, which is what some Biblical scholars think the forbidden fruit actually was. How they know that ... *shrug*

I agree pomegranates.
This is just my theory. In the beginning there were no computers with memory chips. God created the pomegranate and place pips inside it. These were known in heavenly circles as Personal Information Packages (PIP's). When Adam and Eve ate the pomegranates they absorbed the knowledge of good and evil.
Well that's my theory anyway Basketball

by polyglide Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:52 pm

The ability to choose between good and evil was given to Adam and Eve as I have explained previously, otherwise GOD would have been cheating on his agreement with the Devil.

If you do not believe in the Devil then you cannot believe in the Bible or God.

There is a war going on between good and evil, with God on one side and the Devil on the other, man had to be given the choice of good and evil or right and wrong or there wouild have been no contest.

It was not God who chose to make man suceptible to temptation but the terms of the war between God and the Devil and good and bad.

You only have to look at the world today to see who is acctually winning, however, the devil has to turn ALL men against him for the Devil to win and he has no chance because there are enough people with God's help to overcome all the Devil's temptations.

Everyone appears to not include the Devil in their observations and yet he is one of the two key players.

by astra Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:15 pm

There is an auld Scot's saying, pertinant this week. If you look at the similarities between the Mc Canns and the Camerons, it is surely true that "The Devil is Good to His OWN!"

by Shirina Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:31 pm

If you do not believe in the Devil then you cannot believe in the Bible or God.

Well ... I don't believe in either. At least, not in the way religion portrays God. And I certainly don't believe in the Devil. If you really think about it, the whole thing sounds like a fantasy novel - and I'm quite fond of fantasy novels, actually, so I know what they sound like. Oh, I know one might be tempted to conclude that the fantasy genre, with its epic clashes between good and evil, were inspired by the Bible. I call "rubbish" on that conclusion since the classic good vs. evil plot device has been around far longer than the Bible. Such tales can be found in the Hindu Mahabharata and Ramayana which are both at least 3,000 years older than the first Biblical script. In addition, the Bible has eerie similarities to such writings as the Greek myth of Pandora (Adam and Eve), the Epic of Gilgamesh (Noah's flood), and the Egyptian myth of Osiris (Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection).

To me, the Bible is a patchwork quilt of other myths and legends found throughout the ancient world all cobbled together to form the basis of a new religion. Even the vaunted 10 Commandments can be traced back to such well known laws as Hammurabi's Code. The idea that there is a Devil, much less a God, is simply the personification of two concepts - good and evil - something frequently done in earlier writings. To take these writings as actual truth makes no sense; an actual war in Heaven, a place that's supposed to be perfect, is an absurd notion.

There is a war going on between good and evil, with God on one side and the Devil on the other, man had to be given the choice of good and evil or right and wrong or there wouild have been no contest.

The only reason why there is a war between good and evil (your belief, not mine) is because God wants it. Otherwise, God, with all of his infinite power, could just blink away all that opposes him. It's a very Greek and Roman idea that battles rage among the "gods," and humans are used as pawns to further divine and demonic ends. We even have our fair share of "demi-gods" such as Noah, Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Lot, etc., Christianity's answer to Hercules, Theseus, Jason, Perseus, Ariadne, etc. I really have an issue with this, since the writing style of the Biblical stories so closely aligns with previous writings with similar content. That is something I simply cannot dismiss as coincidence, and if we are to give any credence to a Biblical "war" in Heaven, then equal credence must be given to the Greek pantheon's battle with the Titans. Why should one be true while the other is not?

You only have to look at the world today to see who is acctually winning

Why oh why do so few people really know their history?

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:58 pm

There is a war going on between good and evil, with God on one side and the Devil on the other, man had to be given the choice of good and evil or right and wrong or there wouild have been no contest.

"You can't have one without the other"

That could make a good song for someone like Frank Sinatra.

by trevorw2539 Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:29 pm

Shirina quote.
I really have an issue with this, since the writing style of the Biblical stories so closely aligns with previous writings with similar content. That is something I simply cannot dismiss as coincidence

The original Biblical stories - the OT - were written in Hebrew. The Greek stories were written in the Greek. The styles became similar when the OT was translated by the 'Septuagint' (between BC 200-100) from Hebrew into Greek for the benefit of Jews who had been born away from the Promised Land, and who had been settled abroad for generations using Greek as their main language.
Of necessity the style of Greek writing came to the fore in translation + the difficulty of translating some Hebrew words and ideas into Greek.

But then, what do I know.

.

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:39 pm

All the more curious then that some people are willing to place their unquestioning faith in words translating into the English of the 17th. Century writings originally composed in a variety of languages such as Aramaic, Classic Greek, Hebrew etcetera.

by trevorw2539 Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:01 pm

There are only three things certain in life. Death, taxes and arguments about religion. So I'll ignore OW at 5.39pm and watch Russia v Poland. Wink

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:19 pm

Ignored! Sob! and Poles beat the Russians three hours before the match started!

by ROB Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:54 am

Shirina wrote:
… the writing style of the Biblical stories so closely aligns with previous writings with similar content. That is something I simply cannot dismiss as coincidence…

trevorw2539 wrote:
The original Biblical stories - the OT - were written in Hebrew. The Greek stories were written in the Greek. The styles became similar when the OT was translated by the 'Septuagint' (between BC 200-100) from Hebrew into Greek for the benefit of Jews who had been born away from the Promised Land, and who had been settled abroad for generations using Greek as their main language.
Of necessity the style of Greek writing came to the fore in translation + the difficulty of translating some Hebrew words and ideas into Greek.

Style and content are two distinct entities. The nation of Y’srael, later Israel and Judah, later Judea and Galilee, were not isolated from the greater world in which they existed. Accordingly, it is not surprising to me that writing styles of Hebrew writers and other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern writers were similar.

A writing style is a parts of the cultures in which the writer lives. Another aspect of culture, food, helps me to understand the cross-cultural transcendence of certain parts of cultures whose histories are interconnected.

Have either of you ever tasted shawarma? A piece of paradise on pita bread! Lebanese, or so I thought for the better part of two decades. Turns out that there’s a hole-in-the-wall joint in Bahrain that serves some of the tastiest shawarma on the planet. Additionally, it was pointed out to me that gyros, Greek food, last I heard, is distinctly similar to shawarma.

Shawarma, and its “cousin”, gyros, are about a cooking style. I don’t particularly like lamb, but I could eat and thoroughly enjoy shawarma (usually lamb) and gyros (always lamb) from now on. Greek, Lebanese, and Bahraini are different cultures with distinct similarities in cooking styles.

Shirina wrote:
… if we are to give any credence to a Biblical "war" in Heaven, then equal credence must be given to the Greek pantheon's battle with the Titans. Why should one be true while the other is not?

Until one understands the identities of YHWH Elohim (as much as possible), ha adama, and satan/diabolos, the “war” makes no sense at all.

To use a ready example, since my understanding of Tories, Labourites, and especially Liberal Democrats, is so deficient, the war between them makes no sense to me. Right now, insofar as this particular war is concerned, I’m like the Ethiopian from Acts 8, Queen Candace’s Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, while reading Isaiah 53, responded to Phillip’s question “Do you understand what you read?” with “How can I, except someone teach me?”

Phillip then taught him by teaching to him the identities of the major players in Isaiah 53. That’s when the PM said, “See, there is water, what doth hindeeth me from being baptized?” (Sorry about the “th”, Shirina, but Tyndale’s writing style resonates in my brain.) Once the Chancellor got the players’ identities straight in his head, he could boogie.

by Shirina Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:26 am

These were known in heavenly circles as Personal Information Packages (PIP's). When Adam and Eve ate the pomegranates they absorbed the knowledge of good and evil.

Hmm, I've actually heard that theory from somewhere ... can't think of the guy's name at the moment. Something Henry ... or Henry something?

by ROB Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:03 am

So have I. It seems that the funny-sounding fruit that I might never eat (unles Rosa offered it to me) grows naturally in the fertile crescent, if I remember accurately.

by polyglide Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:55 am

If I was to consider any contradictions in anything I was interested in and several people were involved in the recordings then I would first of all see if one or more of those concerned were the ones responsible for the seem,ing contradictions and if they were I would discount their contributions.

by **Ivan** Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:17 pm

Now a Harvard historian has identified a faded, fourth-century scrap of papyrus she calls 'The Gospel of Jesus's Wife'.......

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesus-had-wife-newly-discovered-gospel-suggests-202727064.html

by ROB Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:27 am

According to my memory, somewhere in the Greek Bible the ecclesia of Jesus the Christ is called the bride of Christ. This appellation is consistent with “my wife… she will be able to be my disciple.”

Greek Bible

Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he that was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, he is baptizing and all are coming to him.” John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ He who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. So this joy of mine has been made full.”

John 3:25-29

Additionally, the following teaching, read “backwards”, affirms this relationship of Jesus son of Joseph the Anointed One to his ecclesia.

Greek Bible

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her…

Ephesians 5:25

Jesus gave himself up for “her”, as a husband also ought to give himself up for his wife. The allegorical language is consistent with “my wife… she will be able to be my disciple.”

“my wife… she will be able to be my disciple”: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesus-had-wife-newly-discovered-gospel-suggests-202727064.html

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:39 am

Yes, well, as Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice through the looking-glass, "a word means whatever I want it to mean."

An example to confuse the uninitiated would be the true statement, "Every soldier in the British Army is issued with a Housewife as a part of their kit."

A "housewife" in this specific context is the name given to a mending-kit of needles, thread and darning wool.

by Sponsored content