JamesHackerMP

I agree with that: the whole point (OK, some of the whole point) of parliamentary democracy requires the total (or at least as total as possible) independence of the head of state vis a vis the head of government.

I didn't know you were from MD. By the way, why is it such a big thing who the next Governor-General is? (s)he will be the PM's b**** more or less. It seems a lot less interesting than who the next prime minister would be. In Australia, there was a governor-general who proved very independent (Sir John Kerr) but he paid dearly for his temerity I understand.

So says someone in the mood for trolling.

and of course Hollywood has its biases. You watch "The West Wing", it's pretty lefty. They don't care much for Republicans. There are some pretty weird myths that go around the US about Canada as well I might admit.

OK wait a second, I'm still not sure I understand that difference, between the Word and the Word of God. I meant them to be commensurate, or the same thing really.

Well, fair enough on that score. Still, one wonders why that was written in Genesis in the first place. It just seems like the descendants of Noah (Ham, Shem, Japeth, etc.) are more relevant. And even they are probably in there as part of some sort of Hebrew traditions, not meant to be a literal family tree. The Torah itself (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut) has different sources, and it's not agreed upon by all biblical scholars as to when it was written down. But we at least now know that it is not written by Moses himself even if some bibles say "THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED GENESIS" for example. That's basically a tradition to ascribe it to his authorship instead of trying to figure out exactly when it was really written. My point, therefore, is that the names of these ancestors are possibly--as the intro to the Pentateuch/Torah in my copy---a retrojection from the 400s or 300s B.C. (It also gives another theory from scholars that it was written much earlier, but still combines several different threads or authors.) After all, the Jews were in captivity for a while, the Babylonian captivity as it is known. If they had anything written down before the invasion of Israel, it likely would have been destroyed. This is why there are some of these contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible: the Torah didn't have a single author, nor was the whole of the OT written at the same time (as some ascribe the Pslams to king David and the "wisdom" books to Solomon). When that is the case, things do get a little muddled, even Christian/Jewish sacred writings. As an aside: to Christians, the "word" of God is not the bible, but Jesus Christ himself. It is the muslims who believe the Qur'an is the direct word of God. In Christianity, Jesus is "the Word" incarnate. (If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the Gospel acc. to John.)

The footnotes in my copy said that, to the Jews, a "day"begins at sundown, and ends at the next sundown. That is why many Jewish holidays begin at sundown the previous night; it's the beginning of their actual day. That could be the reason for "and evening came, and norning came: the next day."

OK, I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye that it's not meant to be a science book. But I think you put it accurately when you said "science just so happens to support..." [etc.] If there seems to be an ex post facto affirmation of passages within the Bible by XXI Century science, it's coincidental. Those who put pen to paper centuries ago had no idea about any of that. Divinely-inspired they may have been; that doesn't necessitate God was guiding them toward writing things down that would one day be considered scientifically accurate by other human beings whose outlook on the universe would be radically different from their own. If it seems like He did from various verses in the Bible, it likely wasn't meant to be that way. After all, the XXI century isn't the completion of science as we know it. And sorry about the Judas thing. I shouldn't have accused you of "dodging" it. (Check your personal messages inbox). I think you might have actually explained that in a different thread, I couldn't find it since there are a few different biblical threads about. There's something else I'm curious about. It's not a "contradiction" per se, but one wonders about this particular passage. In Genesis, there are generations descended from Cain and Seth, but they're all wiped out by the flood. It was only Noah's family which survived, as they were the only "good" family (e.g., not evil and violent). SI am referring to the antediluvian (I think is the correct word) table of descendants, in Gen. 4:17--5:32. One is mention as the ancestor of those who play the lyre (v. 4:21) and another who is ancestor of those who dwell in tents and keep livestock (v. 4:20). There are several of these "ancestors of..." mentioned in Genesis 4. Question is, if these are ancestors of certain groups of descendants, why were their lines wiped out by the great flood which only the family of Noah survived? Therefore, why are their names mentioned at all? The only "ancestor" of these types of humans would be Noah, right? It seems a waste of ink and papyrus to have even mentioned these antediluvian populations.

I guess then you have read in entirety the Wife of Bath's tale?

Betsy, you kind of did. OK, not "dodge" exactly but I pointed out the Judas thing, and then the anachronism of "Ur of the Chaldaeans". You mentioned the latter but not the former. I'm not trying to piss you off, but I'd at least like you to elaborate, OK? If you start ignoring people, as you said above ("I'll be ignoring you") you'll end up like our friend Altai.

Actually, you kind of dodged the question when I asked.

That was in the Articles, yes. But the present government is more along the lines that I meant. That of the constitution of 1787.

Betsy dear, how do you know there isn't any disagreements? There's a lot of people on this Earth involved in archaeology and biblical history. I very much doubt all of them agree with each other. Archaeology is a tricky thing, there's so little evidence left from thousands of years ago that it leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. There aren't....unless you take every word literally. My point is not the Christianity/Judaism is dumb, or that the Bible is BS; quite the reverse. By taking everything too literally--the Earth being created in 6 days (I say 6 because 7 was God's day off), that there were an actual Adam and Eve; that a single ship filled with only one male and one female of each clean and unclean animal preserved all the species presently on Earth from a giant catastrophe; that you can actually cause goats and sheep to have offspring of a particular color by showing them certain patterns whilst mating;....need I go on? In the NT, Jesus explains that he speaks in parables. The OT is full of creation "traditions" (I'll stop short of calling them myths rather than traditions since they're somebody's religion, but we're stretching the English language a bit by using the latter) that were meant to illustrate a point. A moral point. Not a scientific point. Not really! Your talk of the laws of thermodynamics, star-dust, etc. indicates the opposite. Unless that wasn't what you "meant" per se. And above you just said "there are no contradictions at all". That implies some sort of literal interpretation, then! I'm not trying to make you agree with me Betsy. But I do have a valid point, meaning it "alleges truth". I think my point is true, you obviously don't. that's fine. I think your points you have made are reasonably valid, they allege truth, but I do believe them to be based on flawed premises. You don't have to agree with my assessment for it to be valid. (some people think "valid" has to mean true, but that's an incorrect use of the word). But my point is that there are contradictions in the Bible, even anachronisms. I have read your articles in support of your view and find them to be flawed as well. That's OK. I won't go to hell for that, will I? NOW: Can we get back to the subject of contradictions? Why would Matthew say that Judas hanged himself, and Acts says he experienced some rather unfortunate gastric distress? Isn't that a contradiction? My point is that it wouldn't be if you weren't taking everything so literally. And yes, you did say that before, maybe not in this thread, but in another of your plethora of simultaneous bible threads. So how do you reconcile the difference between Acts and Matthew vis-a-vis Judas's death?

A lot of myths float around about the US government. Even Americans are often incorrectly taught in grade school civics classes. There are plenty of misconceptions that float around on Maple Leaf Web, I've noticed. Here are a few I've heard from people outside, and even inside, the United States. It's also 2:50 a.m. and I am totally bored, so I figured I'd float this. 1. The federal government was designed to have three, co-equal branches of government that would check each other. 2. The presidency was intended to be the most powerful figure in the federal government. 3. The president wasn't intended to serve for life. 4. The electoral college was invented to keep the "common man" out of government. 5. If you were 21, white and male, you qualified to vote in 1789. 6. Legislation was supposed to be a tug-of-war or compromise between the president and the Congress. 7. The budget was also supposed to be the product of compromise between the president and congress. 8. Washington's actions showed monarchical tendencies. 9. The delegates to the convention (the framers) mostly owned slaves and were all upper class/bourgeois types. 10. Presidential vetoes are final. 11. The US government is a calculating, monolithic bloc. 12. There is still a "spoils system" in the US bureaucracy. 13. The supreme court was vested with the power to nullify laws. 14. The constitution is pretty much written in stone (and our constitution is mostly written at all) That;'s about all I can think of. But if anyone wants to discuss this crap, I'm game. You can read some of this in the Federalist Papers but I haven't met anyone who has read the whole thing who isn't a college professor. It's also 2:45 a.m. and I'm bored.....so, anybody? A Canadian taught me that US history is taught a lot in Canada; I'm curious to know exactly what they teach on these subjects. (In fact, on an almost-related note, an Aussie told me that more Australians are aware George Washington was the first POTUS than are aware that Edmund Barton was their first prime minister; so I'm guessing they teach some of this stuff in some countries outside of the US?)

Now you sound like a journalist, lol. It still has to be proven, Betsy, in order for it to be accepted. Otherwise you're just believing what you want to believe. There are anachronisms in the Bible, as well as contradictions. This is why I believe you cannot take it literally: it brings out the inaccuracy if you try to take it literally.

Oops, here is the copy I found on amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014042234X/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And what of Judas?

But it doesn't sound like it's been "proven" yet absolutely. Archaeologists are a stubborn bunch, and stuff needs to circulate for a while until they really admit it. The bible I have, heavily footnoted, was revised in 2010, so that's pretty recent. Sometimes these biblical archaeologists start to find exactly what they're looking for, is my point.

I have a copy of Canterbury Tales in Middle English. It's actually a recent publication by Penguin (paperback). Real huge like a thousand pages I think. Old English by the way is Anglo-Saxon that sounds incomprehensible. Not to be a smartass but Chaucer is in Middle English. Interestingly enough,Shakespeare is considered, believe it or not, Modern English. When I was in high school--and this was a public high school, not a private school--in Maryland, I took a course on British Literature. We had to memorize the first part of the Prologue...in the original Middle English. All the way from Wan that Aprill with his shores sote....to and at a knight than wal I first beginne. Needless to say I botched that one, but I nailed all the other stuff we had to memorize. You said "all of those"...including Genji? Did you read the unabridged version?

so let's talk about alleged contradictions in the bible. Not the laws of thermodynamics again. How was that relevant to the contradictions in the Bible? Just please explain. Not trying to get nasty about it, I just want to stay on topic. Again, I have no problem talking about this. But you seem to be rehashing your arguments in thread after thread. All right? Not whining, let's just be clear on this. So let's talk contradictions, shall we? The bible does contain anachronisms (a kind of contradiction in a way). Abraham left "Ur of the Chaldeans". But the Chaldean civilization wasn't in Ur at the time. That would be later. I already mentioned the one about Judas hanging himself in Gospel of Matthew, while his bowels explode in Acts of the Apostles. This is why the bible must be taken in context. It's not bullshit by any means, I'm not trying to say that. But there are contradictions if you start looking at the trees and forgetting the forest. Do you understand what I mean? You don't have to agree or accept my view.

Betsy's already covered that one in another thread, the one I bailed from. But it seems she keeps cross-posting her arguments. I have no problem discussing topics of interest with people that won't agree with me--it would be boring if we all agreed with each other--but this constant rehashing on different threads of the same information is cluttering up the forums, in my opinion.

Actually, I saw this facebook meme of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien texting each other. There was something about Lewis accusing him of being anti-semitic (speaking of the German/Wagner connection). He says "cough-cough-dwarves-cough-cough-Jews-cough-cough" after Tolkien's insistent denial.

I wonder if the moderators will tolerate a thread on classical literature in addition to this one? If the moderators are listening, maybe they can merge these two threads? I do not want to "clutter up" MLW.

I had posted a thread on the Tale of Genji asking if anyone else had read the thing. I should have started this thread, on classical literature, instead since it will probably garner more discussion. Genji is long and boring but has its fascinations. But there are others I've enjoyed, some I have not yet finished. The Prince, The Arabian Nights, Livy's History of Rome, Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars, The Canterbury Tales by Chaucer, Anyone into old/classical literature like that?

Terry and the Pirates?