Twinky

Or "go out for a fag" or "have a fag" - yes, cigarette is one meaning, homosexual is another, and there are various other meanings, some of which will be UK specific. One could also be "fagged" which doesn't mean buggered, well not in the sexual way; it means, be very tired. Hehe. Language can be a "false friend" at times.

I had some trouble with my What to Bring list when I went in rez. There's this big long list of items that are required. Some I knew by different names. I never quite worked out what "galoshes" are. I think this is another word that has a different meaning; it's a different type of footwear outside the USA. I think that perhaps "wellies" was meant by this. Anyway - as I couldn't find any, I never got any, and never missed having them.

On the flip side of above post, Americans might talk about "shifting their fannies" (moving fast, moving their bottoms, buttocks). A "fanny" is a slightly lower part of the female anatomy in Commonwealth English, the part that may be called "c*nt," with about the same level of obsceneness.

Had some fun with this one in the Corps. Both ways. Once, some Corps bros came to me and said, "What's a wanker?" or some such. Some question involving the verb form of that, too long ago now. Two of my commonwealth Corps bros had been teaching them some interestingly different words, and they'd said that this meant … whatever. My Corps bros were a bit unsure, these two lads being pranksters. The shocked look on my face confirmed the Corps bros' worst fears. I believe "wank" is what one does in the states to tighten a bolt with a spanner. In UK and Commonwealth English it is a thing men do with their private parts. And a "wanker" is a useless, idle, good for nothing person - it's a very big insult. It is not a mechanic tightening bolts (though in his spare time, he could be a wanker as well). I'm wondering if this post will successfully get through the lewd language filters here and elsewhere.

But you still haven't accounted for whenever you are counting from. The seventh day from when? And how can you possibly know what day the earth was created? Which day? The day that the earth was formless and void? The day the sun shone for the first time? The day the first man walked on earth? You are obviously counting literal days; do you think that? A literal day when (eg) animals were formed and roamed the earth? How can you say the very day that some aspect of the earth's creation was on some specific day, when there were no people around to keep records? Where do ancient fossil records fit into your computation? Most people think that the earth developed in stages, periods, sometimes lasting thousands or millions of year - not literal 24 hr periods. You know Australian aborigines trace their history back tens of thousands of years (and they have written records (drawings that can be carbon-dated) to prove it). In the UK it's proven that (eg) Stonehenge is tens of thousands of years old (carbon-dating from not just the Stones and debris found at the foot of the Stones, but from other artefacts found nearby) (Stonehenge is very much older than merely the famous stones, which are quite new in comparison with the entire site). My church (unlike yours) does not decree any day, but we choose to meet together on a particular day. Other churches choose other days, perhaps because of other work or care commitments. Would you condemn all health workers for working on the sabbath (whatever day is chosen for that)? I wouldn't! I'd say they honour God by their service and honour God in their off-duty time as well. After all, God didn't condemn Levites for ministering on the reserved day.

Waxit, it is Saturday. It is not yet sunset in the country in which you are living. Why have you been posting here for the last two hours, which would be since about 4pm your local time? Isn't that "work" that is forbidden on the sabbath (today being Saturday)?

LOL, T-Bone. You have a great sense of humor (note US spelling).

That's me, T-Bone! I could spell words the American way, but then, it wouldn't really be me, would it? You Yanks really need to learn to spell correctly (hehe). Actually there are some US spellings that (now) seem better to me. In the UK, we tend to use the verb endings "-ise"" where US might write "-ize" (formalise/ formalize) but now knowing a bit about how many Greek words were formulated with a transliterated Z (zed/zee) at the end, I'm less against the "ize" ending. However, there are other words that have distinct differences: Practice - in UK is a noun but in US is a verb; practise is the UK verb, US noun. So you might at times think my spelling is poor, but it's not; whereas I might think the same of you and then have to re-think because this is a US platform with US spellings. (Nonetheless, there are some people who post here whose spelling and grammar really are appalling.) Very funny, Waysider. Who knows, I might have some more of these badges somewhere. And the WOW pin. (I couldn't say where!) As to the books, I kept very few Way pubs, burned some, burned most SNS and Corps notes. I do have some of the other books that were recommended or required that are non-Way pubs. I could be a serious study-hound and am very, very good at that. However, really, I consider that what matters is what the outworking is in someone's life (and in mine, in particular). Is a person kind, gentle, patient, giving, compassionate? Rather than working on the books and printed study material, I'd rather work on that in my own life. Might be thinking through what I know, and might involve the studying of the lives of those around me, to see how they "live the Word," and learn from their amazing generosity, kindness and compassion. I am very blessed with a really well-instructed, awesome, giving, service-oriented church, which despite these socially-distanced times seems to have pulled together and is closer-knit than ever before. Not just the "leaders" but practically everybody is looking out for a significant number of people in our community (not just the church community).

I knocked a little pot over this morning. Thought I'd picked everything up, but later stood on something - a gold-coloured SIT badge,

Waxit certainly got us talking and having a think about why we think what we think. It's been an interesting discussion at times, and I've been glad to review my own understandings and investigate other parts of the Bible. It's all about seeing the big picture, isn't it? God's heart and concern for all his people. And a rest for his people is what is promised, many times, of which the sabbath (or day of rest, particular day unspecified) is just a part. He hasn't convinced anyone, in part because he hasn't made the effort to touch hearts and genuinely listen to other views than his own. It was more an imposition - Way-style --> "This is what you must do. Because I say (that God says) so." Without seeing, or caring, that others of us see that God says something different. I wonder if he will try to convince other groups of his belief? Here is a link to the official stance of Jehovah's Witnesses, who do believe in assembling together and having a day of rest, but again, don't say it should be a particular day of the week. Maybe Waxit could try in a JW forum. https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201109/A-Weekly-Holy-Day-Is-It-Required/

Yep. Everything I, and others on this thread, goes right over your head. We don't live in OT times, Waxit. We have a little more freedom than that. I am not "finding legal loopholes" (which you seem to think is wrong) - I am explaining how law works. I am jolly sure that God intended man to take regular rest from his normal labours. Absolutely! And I have always made it clear to you (should you choose to look) that I do exactly that. I set out in detail how I enjoy my "sabbath rest" and use it to glorify God. I love doing that. Where I absolutely do not agree with you, Waxit, is that it is a special day (that you see as Saturday) and only that day, that must be utilised for the sabbath rest. I do not think it is possible to say that any "original" sabbath day was on any particular day of the week. In fact, I'd say the task is absolutely impossible. And furthermore, I don't believe that God would be one jot upset if anyone (at all) chose to enjoy their day of rest, their sabbath, on some other day of the week, because of whatever commitments that person might have. If you think that, you know a different God from the one I do. Mine is loving, caring, graceful, compassionate, peaceful, forgiving and a lot of other wonderful things besides. My God is not vindictive and will throw me away forever if I happen to celebrate a day of loving him - on the wrong day of the week. Think about that.

I think you have it a little upside down, Waxit. For one thing, things don't "hang" on a foundation. But if you substitute "depend" for "hang" as some versions do, then yes, all things depend on these two laws for their foundation. Strong's translates this as "All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." You do realise, don't you, that when laws are passed, the statutory law is usually not the be-all and end-all of it? There are many subsidiary regulations (in Commonwealth countries called Statutory Instruments (SIs), possibly different in other jurisdictions) But the SI regulations must adhere to the sense of the law itself. It's my view that all the Big Ten commandments, and all the following commandments, are just like that: Statutory Instruments, further defining what is meant by the foundational law(s) but not overriding them. The foundation is just that: the foundation. The most important part. The building atop the foundation can be cleared away entirely, it's just overlay. But the foundation remains and can be built upon afresh. The most important part of the foundation is the Cornerstone. Try checking out what a cornerstone is, architecturally. Here's a start: https://www.newstudioarchitecture.com/newstudio-blog/architectural-cornerstones Do you need even one "guess" at who (not what) the cornerstone is of the church? Who orients his church in a specific direction? And whose apostles and prophets also form part of the foundation? Here's a little clue, from Eph 2:20: The apostles and prophets observed the sabbath, as did Jesus himself, in pre-crucifixion times. I'm not sure it would be true to say that they observed the sabbath in the same way afterwards; can you say that? The ones who remained in Jerusalem got rather legalistic (it's so easy to do that, isn't it? = do the actions without refining the heart and intent); maybe they continued to be sabbath-on-Saturday (as you say) observant; but all the apostles, helpers, converts, who helped spread the early message didn't seem to be sabbath-y on Saturday. They just met together regularly.

Waxit sent me a reply to a question I asked him earlier, but which for some unknown reason he was unable to post here. I have his permission to quote his email to me. I am not endorsing his views and leave it to others to have their say on what Waxit says:

Waxit, you said: Following the examples you yourself think appropriate, I could say: WHERE exactly does it say that Jesus COMMANDED us to keep the Sabbath? He says, Keep MY (my, my, my) commandments. And Jesus's biggest commandments (if you like) are these: FIRSTLY 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] SECONDLY 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.” Note: ONLY TWO commandments. And I can't see any mention of any kind of special days, sabbath or otherwise. And Jesus himself says: There is no commandment greater than these. Note that it DOES NOT SAY: 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength and you must keep the sabbath. In fact, it's conspicuous by its absence. Even you have to agree that ... don't you?

I think he shared some of that on the other thread. Bit confusing, having two almost identical threads on the go.

It's "No-one f---g knows" as they reach the finish line!! LOL!

Waxit, I recommended BibleHub to you (it sounds as though it's new to you?) not so that you could find another way to go picking and choosing, but to help improve your deeper study and scholastic ability. Please tell me you're not using this to get nitpicky and evasive when asked questions. (You may quote this paragraph should you choose to reply to this comment.) (= 15 words plus 13 in parentheses.)

And as well as the gospels, don't forget the Didache, one of the earliest documents written to benefit new Christians. Even that has accrued a considerable amount of what my former church leader (an acknowledged expert in this area of study) called "rust" - the overlays and reinterpretations people put on it.

Waxit: I said NO QUOTES. Pay attention. I think you may find the old translators have a MUCH wider grasp of ancient languages than you, even with the best concordance that's available to you. They spent years, decades, studying ancient languages and customs and the history of the region and the idioms and nuances, perhaps nuances across regions, of those ancient languages. Well. These are the type of scholarly individuals who prepared the concordances; of course they know better than the average joe. How thoroughly do you know - say - the language of the country where you now live? And the development of that language over - let's keep it short - 500 years? What about your knowledge of the development of the English language, and its nuances, idioms and variations over different regions of a country (say, just England) (Sottish, Welsh and Irish versions of English are different again) over the last - say - 1000 years? Do you know, for example, that people in the north of England use a significant number of words that are unknown in the southwest, and vice versa? How many different meanings do you know to the not uncommon word "mash"? That has meanings that many people would know, but also has some local variant meanings that are unknown elsewhere. Here's a really simple question: in 20th and 21st century (=now), what does one mean by "the city" in England? Does it mean the same if you say, "city"? or the "city"? Now go back to the development of these languages, that you are familiar with, and think about how much you know of them 3000 years ago. Because right now you're laying your 21st century ideas on top of what you read. And you must clear your head of 21st century ideas and stick your head into 3000 years ago to understand well enough. Can you honestly say that you can do that? If you can't do that with something that you are familiar with, why do you think you can know more than scholars who have spent lifetimes and developed huge expertise and worked with other scholars of huge expertise, refining ideas knowledge and understanding - that they then graciously share with those of us of lesser intellect and expertise. I think you may find that "gates" refers to the gates of the city (try reading, say, Nehemiah, where the walls and gates of the city were repaired). And the control over the gates and the city enclosed by the walls and the gates rested with the public authorities, which in ancient Israel were the religious authorities. Gates as in gates to an individual garden probably weren't common. Likely the houses were straight onto the street, most unlikely into a front or back garden of a house such as in modern day. Gates might well be only for compounds for animals to be kept safe at night, in warmer months when animals were in fields (and not in the winter months when animals were usually in the same dwelling with their owners).

Most versions say "in your towns" or "cities." Waxit, can I recommend BibleHub to you? Very good and easy to check references, versions, etc, and easy to compare different translations; about a dozen or maybe more are offered for every verse. And you can compare these verses, to get a fuller sense; read whole chapters; and read many commentaries from many different commentators on verses, passages, customs, etc.

ALL I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW, WAXIT, IS YOUR APOLOGY FOR YOUR RUDENESS. DON'T BOTHER OTHERWISE. DON'T QUOTE ME. NOTHING.

What the heck has that got to do with this "sabbath" stuff? Do you think I condone adultery? You know what I've said personally to you; we had a long conversation about it. You know I told you about all sorts of that stuff that had been going on both at HQ and elsewhere. You know how appalled I was. You know that I was being groomed for this, too. Stop making out that you are holier than holy, and I'm some sort of ---- I don't know what. I have been patient with you. I am now beginning to get quite riled. Any more of your insults and I will feel tempted to reply to you in terms that GSC's filters would screen out. I'm not going to write any more now - the steam coming out of my ears is obscuring my sight.

Oh Waxit. Please read!!!! And stop being nasty, and making snarky remarks. Please. It's not endearing. I'm quite willing to agree with you that Jesus Christ is the "goal" of the law. Its "purpose," as you now say. I said that earlier. We all need to develop our relationship with Jesus, the Christ, the Redeemer, King, Saviour. You are the one who wants "chapter and verse." You are the one who wants the scripture slug-fest. You are the one who persists in a view not common here, so you are the one who needs to support it in face of many verses which appear to present something different.

No, Waxit, you are not answering. And you are not accepting either my, or other people's, points of view. I asked, in my longer post yesterday, a few things that I genuinely did want to know. But you can't or won't answer that. Anyway - as I said. Fine. End of.

As you'll be aware, Waxit, the "10Cs" are expanded in the following chapters of Exodus. I wonder about your take on two things. One of these is this (and the other is completely unrelated to sabbath-keeping, so not mentioned here): BUT the following is a quote