John Cuthber

For the sake of discussion, can we assume that a "cupful" is a defined volume and the drinks are served in oversize cups (to avoid spillage)?

The people who were alive when it was written are dead. How easy it was for them to understand it can not matter today. The only thing that can matter today is what people can get from it today. My contention is that, while it may say some good things, it says enough bad things, and is sufficiently unclear on other things that it is not a good place to start if you are looking for moral guidance. At best, it is pointless. You say I keep failing to understand it- well, if you are right then it is failing to do its job. That's yet another facet of why it should be dropped. If you want a moral code or guide to good living, what do you gain from starting with the NT, rather than a blank sheet?

Yes, My working involved thinking about it over a cup of tea and a cup of coffee.

It's not gold aluminate it might be a gold aluminide. It may well be an aluminium auride. It's probably best to think of it as an alloy, rather than a compound. If you melt the two metals together in a vacuum furnace you can get that purple alloy. It's very brittle + not a practical material for most jewellery.

And, as I have said before it doesn't matter. Either It's wrong, it's wrong or it's wrong. It's wrong because it says we should keep the OT (which is morally unacceptable) or it's wrong because it doesn't mean what it says (in which case it's dishonest) or it's wrong because it's unreliable or incomprehensible in which case it's useless as a source of guidance) So why keep it? I already asked that and your answer looked more like a tacit insult than anything actually useful. In any event it wasn't valid anyway because it worked in both directions. Can you do better than that?

OK, so I got round to checking the links. The first one says "It was not until 1832 that William Winsor and Henry Newton, both painters and chemists, are credited with inventing 'moist' watercolors—pans of color moist enough for color to be lifted by the application of a wet brush. " Well the point of adding the glycerine is so the stuff stays moist- indefinitely. The OP says they tried changing the temperature but it didn't make a big enough difference. I will have to guess here, but lets say they tried 30C and 0 C That would give viscosities of about 0.8 and 1.8 (according to this) http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_2/2_2_3.html A range of about 2.2:1 well, if a 2.2 fold increase isn't big enough, lets suggest a 5 fold change According to the other data there you would need a solution that has about 50% glycerine. (We are no-longer talking about the painters who add the odd drop of glycerine to paints to slow the drying down.) And the next question is what happens when you leave some 50% glycerine solution exposed to the air- how fast does it dry out? Well, that's going to depend on the local humidity. In fact if the humidity is high then it won't dry out at all. the water from that atmosphere will condense out into the solution. That's useful in another context. If you want to get air of a known humidity you can let it equilibrate with a known concentration of glycerine in water. There's a graph of the concentration vs humidity in fig 1 here http://horttech.ashspublications.org/content/2/1/52.full.pdf And it shows that for a solution of about 50% glycerine, the solution will gain water if the air is above 80% relative humidity, and lose water if the humidity is below that. So, what happens with real air? Well the humidity is very variable but the average for indoor occupied places is fairly near 50% Looking at that graph again, you can see that a solution of glycerine will be in equilibrium with the air if the concentration is about 80%. Where does that leave us? Well you can mix your pigments into a 50% glycerine: water mixture Then leave it to dry, but the mixture will stop losing water then it reaches about 80% glycerine. The remaining 20% or so of water never dries out (until the glycerine evaporates) Say we start with 1 gram of the 50% mixture and we end up with an 80% solution.There's still 0.5 grams of glycerine there so there's 0.625 grams of the mixture. About 2/3 of the liquid that was present initially is still there. Do you consider that "dry"? Eventually the glycerine will evaporate (actually it won't it will grow mould, but that's another story). How long will that take. Very roughly the rate of evaporation will be proportional to the vapour pressure. The vapour pressure of water at room temperature is about 20 mmHg And according to this http://www.aciscience.org/docs/physical_properties_of_glycerine_and_its_solutions.pdf the vapour pressure of glycerine is about 0.0001 mmHg That's about 200,000 times lower. One of the pages you cited says that the paint is drying in about 40 seconds. If I have kept track of the zeroes correctly that means the glycerine will evaporate (to roughly the same extent) in about a hundred days. of course the figure of 40 seconds is not for complete dryness, just too try to paint with. Complete drying is probably something like a ten or a hundred times longer than that. So, yes as Strange says- they still use it in paints. And yes they do it for exactly the reason I gave- it stops it drying quickly. If you used enough to increase the viscosity five fold- only twice as big a change as the OP ruled out as "a minuscule change" then you would increase the drying time to something like a month or a year. Is that "forever"? perhaps not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_longa,_vita_brevis But, as I mentioned, what you would do there is really give the bacteria and fungi something to get their teeth into. Ice cold vodka (about 6 times more viscous than water) might be better,

OK, for Swansont's benefit Glycerine will take "forever" to dry.

You seem to have conflated assisted / permitted suicide with the death penalty. They are not the same debate.

Are you paying any attention at all? How many times have I pointed out that the biggest problem with the NT is that it tells you, quite clearly that you should follow the OT? So what's the problem here: are you blind or lying?

Glycerine will take forever to dry.

Would that be the OT that the NT says still stands? (And here we go round again) My argument is based on you telling me that nobody can be sure of the meaning of the Bible. Do you not remember saying this? Since you say nobody can know what it originally meant, how can anyone rely on it for anything?

I have here, and elsewhere, asked people to tell me what it is that I don't understand. They have never been able to answer. Can you rule out the idea that this "understanding" is just self-delusion?

Let me help. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/06/17-things-donald-trump-said-and-then-denied-saying/

One could argue that all body parts of all creatures re "semi evolved. They are all changing- slowly.

I will make it less cryptic. You said " I will share this information with the forum if SY does not take it seriously. " Well, I anticipate seeing the information here shortly because the Yard are not going to take anything seriously from someone who even gave that South African fraudster a name-check.

Because it's true. If I can't shoot the bank teller because of the bullet proof glass then they can't shoot me. Less literally, the arrogance of the theists stops them understanding that the Book is... just a book. Weirdly, they usually grasp this idea of all the other Books, but not for theirs.

Well, according to this, only two movies have over 400 errors in them http://www.moviemistakes.com/most/continuity (The Birds and Apocalypse now) and there are over 400 documented errors in the Bible. http://bibviz.com/ So the simple answer would appear to be most books and films do better. Of course most movies and books are shorter than the Bible so it's not really fair. But lets just pick one- The Lord of the Rings. The book is about as thick as the Bible. And (perhaps more importantly) many of the readers and viewers will have been obsessive enough to spot any errors. Well,according to this http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1778 it has 265 mistakes. So it seems that the word of JRR Tolkein is a bit more reliable than the word of God. That's especially embarassing for the Lord, given that the Bible went through a fairly vigorous re-edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea Of course, the idea of a God outside of time and yet us having free will is one of the fundamental contradictions of the Christian faith. My personal favourite is the internal inconsistency of omnipotence - can God set himself a task he can't accomplish?- but there are plenty to go round.

What's wrong with the other several thousand?

Does it point out that shields work in both directions?

So, you edited it to say you hadn't edited it out.

Does any of it say anything that isn't covered by "do unto others..."

What do we get from the NT? A couple of old fairy tales dressed up as miracles?

People on death row appeal the sentence hoping for life in prison instead. They presumably know more about it than you do.

I will leave you with this. If you can't guarantee that the translation is correct then it's no longer reliable and, once again you have pointed out why we should drop it.

Which one?