3 million new homes receive go ahead
maide...@googlemail.com
ahead as announced in the Queen's Speech.
The new Homes and Communities Agency is to be created as part of the
Housing and Regeneration Bill and will "ensure that three million
additional homes are built across England by 2020".
The agency will have the specific task of ensuring a greater supply of
social and affordable private homes. Its other duties will include
making better use of surplus public sector land, maximising the
potential for brownfield development and supervising investment in
wider infrastructure improvements.
What does three million homes look like?
Consider Birmingham which in 2001 had 390,000 households or Liverpool
(188,000) Newcastle (111,000) Derby (92,400), York 77,000, Swindon
75,000, Ipswich, 50,000.
Add all those together and the total is still only about one third of
what is required by government.
The nearest one can get is London - the biggest sprawling city in the
UK, with (2001 figures) 3,015,997 households. A giant metropolis 25
miles east west and the same north south is needed complete with
schools, hospitals, shops, roads and rail links. Just where in England
is there enough brownfield sites and redundant public sector land to
build the equivalent of this new London?
The adverse effect on the local environment; wildlife, biodiversity,
pollution and the quality of life doesn't bear thinking about.
Mark Williams
<maide...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1194372483....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The concreting over of rural England has been given the official go
> ahead as announced in the Queen's Speech.
>
> The new Homes and Communities Agency is to be created as part of the
> Housing and Regeneration Bill and will "ensure that three million
> additional homes are built across England by 2020".
Not quite, all that is happening is that the government is setting up
another layer of bureaucracy to try to force councils to accept higher
planning numbers, where the English regional assemblies have not succeeded.
hw...@freeispshares.co.uk
> <maidenme...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
By a man whose own constituents will not be affected.
It was amusing to hear the BBC reporting comments by politicians after
the Queen's speech about 'the country', 'our country', 'Britain',
educating 'British' children, when what they were talking about -
housing, education, etc - applied only to England. Not one
interviewer corrected them.
www.wheresthepath.co.uk
come from the inner cities, and has therefore decided that the way to
retain power will be to turn the entire country into one giant inner
city...
Why have none of the political parties suggested the alternative:
reducing the need for housing by:
1) Keeping immigration in line with emigration.
2) Changing government policy to discourage divorce/ separation.
3) Tax breaks for shared occupancy/ encouraging children to stay at
their parents' house for longer.
4) Tax changes to discourage purchasing second homes for capital
growth purposes (whilst still allowing them to be used for rental,
which is obviously vital).
Surely, with the amount of NIMBY-ism in this country, along with the
unfortunate prevalent xenophobia, the above should be a sure-fire
election winner for any party?
Brown's proposed policy scares the bejeezus out of me as a lover of
the outdoors. One of the great things about Britain is how green and
verdant it is, and I don't want to lose this to huge blocks of social
housing destined to become the decaying ghettoised slum problem areas
for the next generation. Let's protect what's great about our
country, rather than just accepting change for change's sake.
Aggravated Anth
mr p
> The adverse effect on the local environment; wildlife, biodiversity,
> pollution and the quality of life doesn't bear thinking about.
The UK is 'bigger' than you think. If you fly over the SE of England
for example you just see acres and acres of farmland, huge intensively
farmed fields where animals have no place to live and nothing to eat
and walkers do not have access. What difference will it make to build
on a few of these ?
Gloria
>I think that Brown has realised that many Labour votes traditionally
>come from the inner cities, and has therefore decided that the way to
>retain power will be to turn the entire country into one giant inner
>city...
>
>Why have none of the political parties suggested the alternative:
>reducing the need for housing by:
>1) Keeping immigration in line with emigration.
For that we await the coming of the Fuhrer, it's the only way.
>2) Changing government policy to discourage divorce/ separation.
For that we await the coming of the Fuhrer, it's the only way.
>3) Tax breaks for shared occupancy/ encouraging children to stay at
>their parents' house for longer.
We already have enforced children staying at home, and he gets it for
free without tax breaks. Why would he change?
>4) Tax changes to discourage purchasing second homes for capital
>growth purposes (whilst still allowing them to be used for rental,
>which is obviously vital).
Second homes should attract a stiff penalty, period. Most of the
second homes are already rented.
>Brown's proposed policy scares the bejeezus out of me as a lover of
>the outdoors. One of the great things about Britain is how green and
>verdant it is, and I don't want to lose this to huge blocks of social
>housing destined to become the decaying ghettoised slum problem areas
>for the next generation. Let's protect what's great about our
>country, rather than just accepting change for change's sake.
Sadly I fear it's now too late, no one has the balls to make the
decisions required to give us back Great Britain. For that we await
the coming of the Fuhrer, it's the only way.
Mike.....
<maide...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>The nearest one can get is London - the biggest sprawling city in the
>UK, with (2001 figures) 3,015,997 households. A giant metropolis 25
>miles east west and the same north south is needed complete with
>schools, hospitals, shops, roads and rail links. Just where in England
>is there enough brownfield sites and redundant public sector land to
>build the equivalent of this new London?
I listen to Robert Elms on BBC London, he's one of those people who
never leaves cities,he seems to think the green belt is redundant and
sees no problem on London joining up with the Medway Towns, yet he
says he doesnt like the sprawl of US cities like LA. Doesnt make a lot
of sense.
The only answer to all the envirnmemtal problems long tewr is lower
populations.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email
Mike.....
wrote:
>Why have none of the political parties suggested the alternative:
>reducing the need for housing by:
>1) Keeping immigration in line with emigration.
yes, and population growth. But immigration is going to be a big chunk
of growth and its not supportable IMHO.
>2) Changing government policy to discourage divorce/ separation.
govt isnt pro divorce, look at the financial penalties already in
place!
>3) Tax breaks for shared occupancy/ encouraging children to stay at
>their parents' house for longer.
Hmmmm
>4) Tax changes to discourage purchasing second homes for capital
>growth purposes (whilst still allowing them to be used for rental,
>which is obviously vital).
the concept of second homes should come to be seen the same way as
drink driving now is.
Mike.....
>The UK is 'bigger' than you think. If you fly over the SE of England
>for example you just see acres and acres of farmland, huge intensively
>farmed fields where animals have no place to live and nothing to eat
>and walkers do not have access. What difference will it make to build
>on a few of these ?
the impact on the M25 for a start, then think on.....
mogga
X10 council tax on empty properties and you'll find there's suddenly
no need to build more.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
John
> the concept of second homes should come to be seen the same way as
> drink driving now is.
Why?
My second home is my pension, a good thing too in light of what seems to be
happening in the pensions market. I took the decision a long time ago to
take control of my own future. I don't intend to be one of those unfortunate
people wringing their hands and worrying who will provide for them when
their company pension scheme, or their hard earned investments go down the
toilet. I'd rather my future was in my own hands. Some people choose to pay
into savings schemes, I choose to put my hard earned into property.
When I decide to retire the rental income will provide me with a reasonable
standard of living, when added to my company pension I will have the
standard of living that I always planned to have, not exist hand to mouth
worrying if I could afford to turn the heating on to keep me warm.
As well as providing me with a pension it also enabled me to buy a third
home that my son lives in. We work as a family to look after our own future.
--
Regards
Nick
Broadback
living in flats, USA manage lots of homes by building up not out, yet
they are land rich. What if you can only buy to let flats, that would
release houses for sale and give more properties to rent maybe. What is
the English hate relationship to flats due to, other countries accept
them quite happily?
BAC
"John" <no@email> wrote in message
news:BO6dnQB21PIoDaza...@bt.com...
Good for you. Let's hope they never bring back statutory controlled
tenancies, or the equivalent. Back in the 1970s, I encountered quite a few
landlords with a few houses, bought, pre-war, as a pension fund, but who
couldn't get rid of the tenants to obtain VP, and who received peanuts in
controlled rent.
One tenant complained to me that his landlord (a penniless old lady in her
nineties, living in the adjoining house) was reluctant to install an indoor
bathroom for him. I asked him how he thought she could afford that, when his
rent was only about £1.50 per week, but he was unfazed, remarking that he'd
more than paid the original value of the house in rent over the decades.
I expect it would be political suicide for any party to advocate a return to
those very 'Old Labour' measures.
John Youles
You also need to consider factors like water resources, which are stressed in
many areas. Desalination, as planned for London, surely cannot be sensible in
view of the increased energy requirements.
Sooner or later we will have to accept that a small country cannot accept an
increasing population indefinitely.
hw...@freeispshares.co.uk
But why should the English be made to accept living in cramped
conditions just so that immigrants whom they neither want nor need can
be accommodated?
It is part of English culture to want your own little bit of England -
ie a garden. Perhaps you need to go on a cultural awareness course,
as you don't seem to understand or respect English cultue.
Broadback
the English hate relationship to flats due to, other countries accept
>> them quite happily?-
>
> But why should the English be made to accept living in cramped
> conditions just so that immigrants whom they neither want nor need can
> be accommodated?
> It is part of English culture to want your own little bit of England -
> ie a garden. Perhaps you need to go on a cultural awareness course,
> as you don't seem to understand or respect English cultue.
>
would not want to live in a flat, just wondering why the English hate
them so much, where others rub along quite happily with them.
Mike.....
>> the concept of second homes should come to be seen the same way as
>> drink driving now is.
>
>Why?
because theres a shortage of accomodation (im not talking about rented
out property, im talking about all the empty 50 weeks a year property
in places like the lake district.
Mike.....
>Perhaps we should start a campaign to get people in England to accept
>living in flats, USA manage lots of homes by building up not out, yet
>they are land rich. What if you can only buy to let flats, that would
>release houses for sale and give more properties to rent maybe. What is
>the English hate relationship to flats due to, other countries accept
>them quite happily?
we love gardening for a start and dont seem to want to go and sit in a
central square instead, as in Spain.
John
Holiday homes, I have to say that I'm not a fan of those and wouldn't buy
one on that basis.
--
Regards
Nick
John
It depends where you are in the country. In my part of the world there's no
shortage of houses to buy.
I live a few minutes from a development that has loads of unsold houses and
plenty of room to build more. In fact developers are offering all kinds of
inducements to try and get people to buy. A recent study by a local
councilor showed we have over 4000 houses in the area available.
What we as a country are up against is the reluctance of many companies to
move away from the overcrowded south east to areas with housing to spare and
that could do with new employment opportunities.
--
Regards
Nick
Simon Challands
Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we should start a campaign to get people in England to accept
> living in flats, USA manage lots of homes by building up not out, yet
> they are land rich. What if you can only buy to let flats, that would
> release houses for sale and give more properties to rent maybe. What is
> the English hate relationship to flats due to, other countries accept
> them quite happily?
Although superficially that makes sense, there is a need for some
rented housing too. In any case, buy to let is one of the reasons
there's an overdemand for housing. In most places there are enough
buildings, it's the way they're owned that's causing a lot of the
problems. If it wasn't then people wouldn't be renting who really want
to buy. The supply of rented accommodation vastly outweighs the real
demand for it, but forces people to use it anyway.
--
Simon Challands
Simon Challands
John Youles <jyo...@this.address.is.invalid> wrote:
It's already gone well beyond what is welcome, even if strictly
speaking it's still just about sustainable. Very few parts of England,
at least, feel like there isn't a city just around the corner. Once
upon a time England was mostly quiet and rural and pleasant, albeit
with poor living conditions for most people. It would be a far more
pleasant place to live in if there were far fewer people in it, and
surely that should be the ultimate aim of any government? (the
pleasantness, not getting rid of people!) We can't fairly get rid of
any that we've already got, but being perfectly happy for more and
more to appear is complete and utter madness caused by short-term
economic-only thinking.
--
Simon Challands
amacm...@aol.com
I wish I could share your optimism. Only yesterday I was talking to
an architect who said someone he knew who was interested in a flat had
been approached by the vendors agent so anxious to conclude missives
that his client would accept an offer well below the asking price if
the deal was completed before Christmas. In another situation a flat
in Glasgow that was bought to rent was sold for £65k below the price
it was bought for a couple of years ago. Things are changing in the
property market and not before time. Houses should be to live in; not
as ever increasing investments.
There is no sure way investment success and anyone who thinks that is
living in an unreal world.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Jon Combe
> the outdoors. One of the great things about Britain is how green and
> verdant it is, and I don't want to lose this to huge blocks of social
> housing destined to become the decaying ghettoised slum problem areas
> for the next generation. Let's protect what's great about our
> country, rather than just accepting change for change's sake.
I also fail to understand how this is any way compatible with another
announcement, legally binding targets to reduce carbon emissions by
60%. Since the same Government claims a very high percentage of carbon
emissions comes from homes, building another 3 million homes, each
needing heating, appliances etc, not to mention the energy used to
build the homes seems to be at odds with the stated aim of reducing
carbon emissions. Not to mention that three million more homes implies
a significant increase in the population therefore leading to more
transport, more food required etc, all of which leads to increased carbon
emissions.
So if this target is indeed legally binding and at the same time we're
apparantly comitted to accepting a huge increase in our population then
I believe the future looks bleak. Virtually everything we do emits carbon,
including breathing. So to meet a 60% reduction with a greatly increased
population means I fear are quality of life will reduce greatly in the
future. Most of our electricity is also generated by fossil fuels.
Environmental groups oppose Nuclear power stations. So what is the solution?
All the countryside we have left after all these homes have been built is
covered in a mass of windfarm to provide all our power needs (and probably
transport needs to?). What happens on a still day!
Jon.
Jon Combe
> living in flats, USA manage lots of homes by building up not out, yet
> they are land rich. What if you can only buy to let flats, that would
> release houses for sale and give more properties to rent maybe. What is
> the English hate relationship to flats due to, other countries accept
> them quite happily?
IMHO, anti social behaviour is a big factor in the reluctance to live in
flats. E.g. nosiy neighbours, vandalism to communal areas etc. Of course
other countries probably have the same problems, but I still thing it
is a factor.
Personally speaking I also dislike knowing that maintenance charges and
the like are not legally controlled and can increase hugely. For example
if structual work is required to the building or the lifts needs replacing.
Jon.
Adam Lea
"Broadback" <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote in message
news:5pe7d6F...@mid.individual.net...
Because then you are at increased risk of noisy antisocial neighbours, plus
you have to pay a yearly maintenance fee.
Ivan
<maide...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> The concreting over of rural England has been given the official go
> ahead as announced in the Queen's Speech.
>
> The new Homes and Communities Agency is to be created as part of the
> Housing and Regeneration Bill and will "ensure that three million
> additional homes are built across England by 2020".
>
>>
> pollution and the quality of life doesn't bear thinking about.
>
Does those numbers take into consideration the fact that "The UK population
could almost double over the coming 75 years" ...
Mike.......
>> The adverse effect on the local environment; wildlife, biodiversity,
>> pollution and the quality of life doesn't bear thinking about.
>>
>
>Does those numbers take into consideration the fact that "The UK population
>could almost double over the coming 75 years" ...
unless population increase is halted you might as well forget about
conservation and stopping warming.
Ivan
"Mike......." <mikebc...@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jolep39uagsl41f0s...@4ax.com...
AIUI if everyone in the world demanded the same standard of living as we
enjoy here in the UK, it would take the resources of three earth sized
planets just to sustain it.
So even leaving global warming and all the other stuff out of the equation,
with the world's population predicted to expand by another 50 per cent over
the next 30 years and material demands forging ahead in countries like China
and India, then it doesn't take the brain of Einstein to predict what the
likely outcome is going to be over the coming decades.. A bit of a bumpy
ride, that's for sure!
Excuse the typo in my original post, 'Does those' should have been 'Do
those'.
Mike.......
>> unless population increase is halted you might as well forget about
>> conservation and stopping warming.
>> --
>
>AIUI if everyone in the world demanded the same standard of living as we
>enjoy here in the UK, it would take the resources of three earth sized
>planets just to sustain it.
yep.
--
Simon Challands
Mike....... <mikebc...@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote:
Well, the obvious thing to do is to try to discourage population
growth. There wouldn't be that much if the government wasn't hell-bent
on trying to squeeze as many people in as rapidly as possible in a
short-sighted move that only considers economics and doesn't care
about the fact that there's no point in having money if you live in an
awful place (plus the fact that if you buy their arguments then you
have to have permanent growth, which is obviously impossible - may as
well stop it as soon as possible whilst there's still a little worth
saving).
Do these idiots WANT to live in the world of Blade Runner?
--
Simon Challands
abelard
no, they want you to....
'new' labour is seeking to exploit you to fund their fortunes
and pensions....
they are completely ruthless in that pursuit
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike.......
>'new' labour is seeking to exploit you to fund their fortunes
> and pensions....
>they are completely ruthless in that pursuit
your way off track if you think all this is down to labour, its
fundamental to the capitalist economy. If you want to understand stop
thinking along political party lines.
Ivan
Although when it comes down to almost everything being up for grabs and
importing more consumers and producers (sic) than this poor old country can
possibly cope with, irrespective of the long-term consequences, then IMO
this government makes Thatcher look like a complete amateur.
Boo
A plank of wood makes TMBT look like a complete amateur so what's your point ?
followups set
--
Boo
abelard
there are fundamental differences....
most tories have been able to earn a living independently
most socialists are not....
hence monetary corruption has always been at the heart of labour
Mike.......
I do not need to defend religion, but you do not need to defend error and
injustice. Let God, out of His compassion, having no regard to the evil
which is in me, and having regard to the good which is in you, grant us all
grace that truth may not be overcome in my hands, and that falsehood...
922. Probable.--Let us see if we seek God sincerely, by comparison of the
things which we love. It is probable that this food will not poison me. It
is probable that I shall not lose my action by not prosecuting it...
923. It is not absolution only which remits sins by the sacrament of
penance, but contrition, which is not real if it does not seek the
sacrament.
924. People who do not keep their word, without faith, without honour,
without truth, deceitful in heart, deceitful in speech; for which that
amphibious animal in fable was once reproached, which held itself in a
doubtful position between the fish and the birds...
It is important to kings and princes to be considered pious; therefore they
must confess themselves to you.
THE END
[1]"Abstain and uphold." Stoic maxim.
2Petronius, 90. "You have spoken more as a poet than as a man."
[3]"Nothing in excess."
[4]Horace, Epistle to the pisos, 447. "They curtailed pretentious
ornaments."
5Title given by Pico della Mirandola to one of his proposed nine hundred
theses, in 1486.
[6]Tacitus, Annals, iv. "Kindnesses are agreeable so long as one thinks them
possible to render; further, recognition makes way for hatred."
7St. Augustine, City of God, xxi. 10. "The manner in which the spirit is
united to the body can not be understood by man; and yet it is man."
[8]Virgil, Georgics, ii. "Happy is he who is able to know the causes of
things."
[9]Horace, Epistles, I. vi. 1. " To be astonished at nothing is nearly th
Ivan
there are some occasions on which it ought to submit. It is then right for
it to submit, when it judges that it ought to submit.
271. Wisdom sends us to childhood. Nisi efficiamini sicut parvuli.38
272. There is nothing so conformable to reason as this disavowal of reason.
273. If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious
and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our
religion will be absurd and ridiculous.
274. All our reasoning reduces itself to yielding to feeling.
But fancy is like, though contrary to, feeling, so that we cannot
distinguish between these contraries. One person says that my feeling is
fancy, another that his fancy is feeling. We should have a rule. Reason
offers itself; but it is pliable in every sense; and thus there is no rule.
275. Men often take their imagination for their heart; and they believe they
are converted as soon as they think of being converted.
276. M. de Roannez said: "Reasons come to me afterwards, but at first a
thing pleases or shocks me without my knowing the reason, and yet it shocks
me for that reason which I only discover afterwards." But I believe, not
that it shocked him for the reasons which were found afterwards, but that
these reasons were only found because it shocked him.
277. The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a
thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being,
and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to them; and it
hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You have rejected the
one and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself?
278. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then,
is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason.
Faith is a gift of God; do
Mike.......
18.), and that they do not lead to idolatry (Deut. 13.); and Jesus Christ
one.
If doctrine regulates miracles, miracles are useless for doctrine.
If miracles regulate...
Objection to the rule.--The distinction of the times. One rule during the
time of Moses, another at present.
804. Miracle.--It is an effect, which exceeds the natural power of the means
which are employed for it; and what is not a miracle is an effect, which
does not exceed the natural power of the means which are employed for it.
Thus, those who heal by invocation of the devil do not work a miracle; for
that does not exceed the natural power of the devil. But...
805. The two fundamentals; one inward, the other outward; grace and
miracles; both supernatural.
806. Miracles and truth are necessary, because it is necessary to convince
the entire man, in body and soul.
807. In all times, either men have spoken of the true God, or the true God
has spoken to men.
808. Jesus Christ has verified that He was the Messiah, never in verifying
His doctrine by Scripture and the prophecies, but always by His miracles.
He proves by a miracle that He remits sins.
Rejoice not in your miracles, said Jesus Christ, but because your names are
written in heaven.
If they believe not Moses, neither will they believe one risen from the
dead.
Nicodemus recognises by His miracles that His teaching is of God. Scimus
quia venisti a Deo magister; nemo enim potest haec signa facere quae tu
facis nisi Deus fuerit cum eo.178 He does not judge of the miracles by the
teaching, but of the teaching by the miracles.
The Jews had a doctrine of God as we have one of Jesus Christ, and confirmed
by miracles. They were forbidden to believe every worker of mira
Ivan
search, and is confident she has within her the necessary powers for this
conquest. We must therefore conclude, and, after having examined her powers
in their effects, observe them in themselves, and see if she has a nature
and a grasp capable of laying hold of the truth.
74. A letter On the Foolishness of Human Knowledge and Philosophy.
This letter before Diversion.
Felix qui potuit... Nihil admirari.
280 kinds of sovereign good in Montaigne.
75. Part I, 1, 2, c. 1, section 4.[13]
Probability.--It will not be difficult to put the case a stage lower, and
make it appear ridiculous. To begin at the very beginning. What is more
absurd than to say that lifeless bodies have passions, fears, hatreds--that
insensible bodies, lifeless and incapable of life, have passions which
presuppose at least a sensitive soul to feel them, nay more, that the object
of their dread is the void? What is there in the void that could make them
afraid? Nothing is more shallow and ridiculous. This is not all; it is said
that they have in themselves a source of movement to shun the void. Have
they arms, legs, muscles, nerves?
76. To write against those who made too profound a study of science:
Descartes.
77. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been
quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to
set the world in motion; beyond this, he has no further need of God.
78. Descartes useless and uncertain.
79. Descartes.--We must say summarily: "This is made by figure and motion,"
for it is true. But to say what these are, and to compose the machine, is
ridiculous. For it is useless, uncertain,
Mike.......
publishes to a nation, and a book which itself creates a nation. We cannot
doubt that the book is as old as the people.
629. Josephus hides the shame of his nation.
Moses does not hide his own shame.
Quis mihi det ut omnes prophetent?112
He was weary of the multitude.
630. The sincerity of the Jews.--Maccabees, after they had no more prophets;
the Masorah, since Jesus Christ.
This book will be a testimony for you.
Defective and final letters.
Sincere against their honour, and dying for it; this has no example in the
world, and no root in nature.
631. Sincerity of the Jews.--They preserve lovingly and carefully the book
in which Moses declares that they have been all their life ungrateful to
God, and that he knows they will be still more so after his death; but that
he calls heaven and earth to witness against them and that he has taught
them enough.
He declares that God, being angry with them, shall at last scatter them
among all the nations of the earth; that as they have offended Him by
worshipping gods who were not their God, so He will provoke them by calling
a people who are not His people; that He desires that all His words be
preserved for ever, and that His book be placed in the Ark of the Covenant
to serve for ever as a witness against them.
Isaiah says the same thing, 30.
632. On Esdras.--The story that the books were burnt with the temple proved
false by Maccabees: "Jeremiah gave them the law."
The story that he recited the whole by heart. Josephus and Esdras point out
that he read the book. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici a Christo Nato ad
Annum 1198, 180: Nullus penitus Hebraeorum antiquorum reperitur qui
tradiderit libros periisse et per Esdram esse restitutos, nisi in IV Esdrae.
The story that he changed the letters.
Philo, i
John Beardmore
<ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Just as it isn't helpful to see this as a party political issue, I doubt
it's helpful to see it as specific to "this poor old country" either.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore