Figure 1: Linfield F.C.’s badge. The motto reads: ‘Audaces Fortuna Juvat’, which means ‘luck helpeth the daring’, or ‘luck assists the daring’.
This is Linfield F.C.’s badge. Their home ground, Windsor Park, is in the news these days. Unionists, unsurprisingly, are opposed to the use of the derelict GAA stadium, Casement Park, for Euro 2028. The GAA has grounds like Lochrie/Campbell Park and competitions named after Provisional IRA members like Mairéad Farrell (1957-1988). The GAA, as well as being a sporting body, is also an explicitly nationalist political group. Sport is a means to ending partition—i.e. Northern Ireland itself!—for the GAA in its official guidebook. The semtex bombing that Farrell was planning was, in my view, psychopathic. Only a psychopath, in my view, can set a carbomb to go off, in a place bustling with tourists, and then drive away. The Gibraltar-bombing attempt was an Eniskillen-style attack on a military parade attended by tourists/civilians. The failed Gibraltar bombing was an Enniskillen-style attack, after the atrocity of Enniskillen hadalready occurred in 1987. In a documentary, Farrell said, lyingly, that she disaproved of the Enniskillen atrocity, even though she herself was planning an almost identical atrocity.
Video 1: At 41:40 it is reported that Mairéad Farrell ‘disaproved’ of the Enniskillen atrocity: this was a lie, on her part.
Leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou Mc Donald, said that Unionist opposition to using Casement Park for Euro 2028 was “incomprehensible”. In my view, this speaks only to her inability to comprehend. Now that Catholics/Nationalists are in the majority in Northern Ireland, I sense that they are behaving every bit as chauvanistic, intolerant, and triumphalist as the Old Stormont, the “Protestant State for a Protestant People”, supposedly was, and I say this as an ethnic Irish Catholic, myself. Leo Veradkar, the Southern-Irish Taoiseach—pronounced: “tééshock”, or, to employ the IPA: /ˈtʰiː.ʃɑχ/—or Prime Minister, recently visited Windsor Park.
Figure 2: The Southern-Irish Taoiseach or Prime Minister holding up a Linfield F.C. Jersey in Windsor Park, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Figure 1: A locust that I, Ciarán Aodh Mac Ardghail, drew with a black pen and pencils. The Hebrew for: ‘What is this? This is a locust.’ is written, calligraphically, in pencil.
A locust that I drew.
„מַה־זֶּה?“ „זֶה חָגָ֫ב.“ Transliterated:
‘mahz־zeh?’ ‘zeh c͡hāg͡hā́b͡h.’
Translated:
‘What is this?’ ‘This is a locust.’
Video 1: In this video, I ask: ‘What is this? This is a locust.’ in Hebrew.
I am playing the horror game, Alan Wake Remastered (2020), on PS4. One of its themes is running towards the light. I cannot help singing to myself in my own mind the last two lines of ‘Panis Angelicus’ (Angelic Bread):
‘Per tuās sēmitās Dūc nōs quō tendimus Ad lūcem quam inhabitās. Āmēn.’
The above is Latin for:
‘Through thy paths, lead Thou us whither we strive Towards the light that thou dwellest in. Amen’
(my translation into Biblical English)
‘Lead us through your paths, to that place that we are striving for towards the light that You live in. Amen’
Figure 1: A rough pencil sketch of The Annunciation that I drew, some time ago.
“גְּבִירָ֫ה„ or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrấh’, in Hebrew, means: ‘lady’.
To say ‘Our Lady’, we put “גְּבִירָ֫ה„ or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrấh’ into the construct state. This yields: “גְּבִירַת„, or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrát͡h’, which means: ‘the lady of’. To the previous construct form, we then suffix the first person plural suffix: “נוּ ֵ-„ or transliterated: ‘-ḗ͡ínûw’. This yields: “גְּבִרַתֵּ֫נוּ„ or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrat͡ħ-t͡ħḗ͡ínûw’, which means: ‘The Lady of us’; or: ‘The Lady of Ours’; or’ ‘Our Lady’.
“מִרְיָ֫ם„, or, transliterated: ‘mirəyā́m’, is a Hebrew proper noun that means: ‘Mary’.
In this video, I respond to The Babylon Bee’s video: If Jesus’ Resurrection were a Hoax.
Video 1: A Babylon Bee video which, in my view, strawmans naturalist explanations of the alleged Resurrection.
Below is Part 1 of my video response:
Video 2: This is my video-response to the Babylon Bee’s video, above.
In video 2, I examine the claims that the Apostles were “brutally murdered” for professing belief in the Resurrection. The latest scholarship—indeed the latest Christian scholarship—suggests that they were not. At best, there is some historical evidence that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were martyred.
In video 2, I ponder whether or not stealing the body was even necessary for a belief in the Resurrection to crop up, naturalistically, amongst the Early Church. The latest Scholarship suggests that there was no empty tomb. Even Bart Ehrman[1] has abandoned belief in the ‘honorable burial’ of Jesus. I suggest that—in the unlikely event that it ever even existed!—Jesus’s tomb was so luxurious, that it would have been reused after His death. If we ever did find Jesus’s tomb, there would, in all likelihood, be a corpse interred there. It would then be impossible for us to determine whether or not this corpse would be Jesus’s or the later tomb-occupant’s.
In video 2, I also stress that History is about ascertaining what probably happened in the past, and not about ascertaining what absolutely happened in the past. History has no way of ascertaining what absolutely happened in the past.
As Bart Ehrman stresses, given that History proceeds via methodological naturalism, the silliest and most ad hoc Naturalist explanation for the Resurrection is still going to be much much much more likely than a supernaturalist explanation that entails a man rising from the dead.
Ehrman posulates, for example, that Jesus might have had a twin, and whenever Jesus died, then Jesus’s twin came back on the scene, and began to tell everybody that he was the risen Jesus. This explanation is silly and absurd, and yet, according to Ehrman, it is much more likely than the postulation that a man rose from the dead.
Bart Ehrman does not say that miracles do not happen. As an ontological naturalist, this is, indeed what he privately believes, but this is not something that he can assert as an historical fact. However, what Ehrman does say is that if miracles do happen, then the Historical Method has no means of detecting them.
The Historical Method can only detect natural occurrences proceeding from natural causes. If miracles occur in the past, then the Historical Method is incapable of detecting them. Even then, the Historical method can only detect some natural events proceeding from some natural causes. The Historical Method is far from error-free. Sometimes it fails to detect phenomena that actually occurred in the past. Sometimes the Historical Method detects an occurrence that never occurred in the past.
I think that some Christian Apologists, like Frank Turek, have a hard time understanding this.
If there be an 80% chance that an event occurred in the past, then there is also a 20% chance that this same event did not occur in the past. Sometimes phenomena occur in the past—or, indeed, fail to occur—in the past, against the odds.
[1] The following quote is from Bart Ehrman Blog: ‘One of the most pressing historical questions surrounding the death of Jesus is whether Jesus really was given a decent burial, as the NT Gospels indicate in their story of Joseph of Arimathea. Even though the story that Joseph, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, received permission to bury Jesus is multiply attested in independent sources (see, e.g., Mark 15:43-47; John 19:38-42), scholars have long adduced reasons for suspecting that the account may have been invented by Christians who wanted to make sure that they could say with confidence that the tomb was empty on the third day. The logic is that if no one knew for sure where Jesus was buried, then no one could say that his tomb was empty; and if the tomb was not empty, then Jesus obviously was not physically raised from the dead. And so the story of the resurrection more or less required a story of a burial, in a known spot, by a known person. For some historians, that makes the story suspicious.
CIARAN: “Is Inspiring Philosophy a secret Inerrantist? Well, let us take a look at this video, and see.”
ZAC SECHLER: “How
do you go about the Inerrancy of Scripture, is that an idea that you have?”
CIARAN: “The
correct answer to this question is ‘no’. That’s it! ‘No. I do not hold to the
idea of the Inerrancy of scripture.’ This is the correct answer but let us see
what Michael Jones says.”
MICHAEL JONES: “I
don’t even know what that means, anymore.”
CIARAN: “Ok, so Michael
Jones supposedly does not know what ‘inerrancy’ means anymore so let us explain
it to him: if we come into CodePen, here. The term, ‘inerrancy’, comes from the
Latin word, ‘errāre’, and ‘errāre’ means ‘to err’; ‘to go astray’; ‘to
make a mistake’; ‘to wander away from the truth’. That is what the ‘errāre’
part of ‘inerrant’ means. That is what the ‘errant’ part of ‘inerrant’ means. And
then we have… then we have have the word, ‘in-’, and what does ‘in-’ mean? Well…
I apologise, this is my first time using streamyard. Eh, so ‘in-’ is is Latin
for ‘privative’ and so ‘in- ’ ‘ means ‘not’. ‘in-’ is a prefix. ‘in-’ is a
privative prefix that means ‘not’ so ‘inerrant’ quite simply means ‘not errant’.
‘inerrant’ quite simply means ‘not having any mistakes’. ‘inerrant’ means ‘not
having
any errors’ and I
find it hard to believe that Inspiring Philosophy does not know the definition
of the word ‘inerrant’. This is a tactic[1]
of Greg Koukl’s.
When one is to ask
an apologist for the evangelical Christian Faith a difficult question, they
say: “What do you
mean by that?” and so here Inspiring Philosophy has essentially said: What do
you mean by that?” in the vein of Greg Koukl’s Tactics. And so this is
what I mean by that: Does the Bible have errors? Does the Bible go astray? Does
the Bible make a mistake? Does the Bible wander away from the truth? And the
honest answer to that is ‘yes! It does!’ and if you want a list of all errors
in the Bible than this right here (pointing to Skeptic’s Annotated Bible)
is a great way to start and the list of errors in the Bible presented by this
book is by no means exhaustive. And so let us get back to our friend, here. Inspiring
philosophy.”
MICHAEL JONES: “I
don’t even know what that means, any more.”
CIARAN: “This is a
dodge! This is a shuffle! This is an evasion! The honest answer is: ‘No! I do
not hold to the idea of Biblical Inerrancy.’ But inspiring Philosophy, instead,
just simply sidesteps the question.”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “I remember I was at ETS…”
CIARAN: “Evangelical
Theological Seminary. Michael Jones arguing towards academia. He brings the
PhD, Mike Licona, into it, which is simply an ‘argūmentum ex
auctōritāte’ or ‘an argument from authority’.
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “… last year, and I attended a lecture by Mike Licona, and he said
the same thing: ‘depending on who you talk to, what does “inerrancy” mean?’”
CIARAN: “Well, depending upon whether the person is intellectually honest or not, ‘inerrant’ means ‘does it have errors?’; ‘Does it have historical errors?’; ‘Does it have scientific errors?’; ‘Does it have moral errors?’; ‘Does it errors, in Math?’; ‘Does it add things up, wrong?’ And the answer and the answer to all of this is ‘yes, it does! The Bible has all of these errors in it.’ And so, if you ask an intellectually honest person what ‘inerrancy’ means, they will give you an honest answer. However, if you ask a Christian fundamentalist apologist what ‘inerrancy’ means, then they will try to muddy the waters by bringing in concepts such as ‘functional inerrancy’. You know the Bible is only inerrant essentially where it doesn’t make a mistake and all the places where the Bible does not make a mistake. Eh, well… that is not covered by ‘functional inerrancy’[2], because God really has nothing to say about these issues. So, it depends: if you ask an intellectually honest person what ‘inerrancy’ means they will give you an intellectually honest definition. I think this is an extremely intellectually honest definition of what ‘inerrancy’ means.”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “… I don’t think that we should even use the term, anymore.”
CIARAN: “No, the
term is accurate. And this is a very Orwellian part of Michael Jones. He
redefines words. He discards words. You know, ‘inerrancy’ is a good term. Is… Does
the Bible make mistakes? In the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew can’t even
add up the generations right… He makes a mistake in arithmetic. So, there are
arithmetical errors in the Bible. So, it is not the term that is at fault: it
is the fact that the Bible fails the inerrancy test. So, let us keep the term,
‘inerrancy’. Let us keep the term, ‘inerrancy’, so that we can say of this
book: ‘no, it is not inerrant!’”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “I don’t know what it means!”
CIARAN: “You don’t
know what ‘inerrancy’ means!? I mean, I am … This is why I think that Michael
Jones is the most intellectually dishonest apologist on the internet… because
he says wild stuff, like this.”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “And everyone pretty much agrees…”
CIARAN: “Michael
Jones here, is about to make the question-begging fallacy, here. He is going to
beg the question that there were perfect originals… and, in begging the
question, here, he actually gives the proper answer! The proper answer… you
know, we have to deduce this out of him. The proper answer is that he thinks
that the originals were inerrant but the copies… we only have copies of the
Bible, and so the copies of the Bible: they aren’t inerrant. So so on the one
hand he says: “I don’t know what inerrancy means”, but, here, he essentially
says, well yes the autographa[3],
the autographs, the Ausgangtexte[4],
the originals: they were inerrant, so… in this, in the first, in the first few
seconds of the video, he says: ‘I don’t what it means.’ And then, in the last
seconds of the video he says: ‘Well, I kind of think that the originals were
inerrant.’ So, let us go back to see Michael Jones commit the question-begging
fallacy:”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “I mean everyone pretty much agrees, there are scribal errors.”
CIARAN: “This is
begging the question: ‘scribal errors’: ‘scribes’ copy texts, they don’t write texts.
So, here he is begging the question that the originals were perfect. So, I
mean, in this… you know, we can kind of, you know extract, from him here what
he actually thinks: he kind of actually thinks that the originals
were perfect; that the originals were inerrant.
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “… like in Ezra or if you compare lists between Chronicles or Kings: there is going to be a little bit of discrepancies there.”
CIARAN: “‘discrepancies’,
you know, if a document is ‘discrepant’, I mean, this is a synonym for ‘error’,
so he will use the word ‘discrepancy’; he won’t use the word ‘error’. He’s… ha
ha ha! he’s tap-dancing around the word, ‘error’!
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “I don’t see that as much of an issue.”
CIARAN: “Ha ha ha!
Well, it’s evidence against your religion! It might not be conclusive evidence,
but it is evidence against your religion, because for, until roughly the time
of Spinoza, the Christian Church did hold to inerrancy, but then Spinoza
began to notice mistakes and errors in the Bible, in The Age of Enlightenment, and
since then there has been a slow retreat from the Doctrine of Biblical
Inerrancy. And it’s evidence against your religion, eh, I mean, this is a
tactic of his friend, Testify’s, as well. Testify will say: ‘Oh well that
doesn’t disprove Christianity!’ No, okay, it doesn’t disprove it
but it is evidence against it. If your God actually inspired a perfect
and inerrant book, then that would be evidence in favour of
Christianity. So, the fact that this book, supposedly written by God is saturated
with errors is, in my view, evidence against it, so, it is an issue. It
is an issue, but, you know, here is Michael Jones hand-waving the issue away.”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “I am more interested in talking about reliability[5]…”
CIARAN: “The Bible
is not reliable. Genesis to the Book of Ruth is pure fiction, and if you read The
Oxford Bible Commentary they’ll even say that 1st and 2nd
Samuel: it’s fiction, but some of the characters in there like Saul and David
actually existed. Eh, the New Testament is full of forgeries. Read Bart Ehrman.
The Gospels are anonymous novels that are full of contradictions. The synoptics
and the Gospel of John have Jesus crucified on different days. So, again, he is
side-stepping the issue. The question was: ‘Do you hold to the idea of
inerrancy?’ but Michael Jones shuffles towards the totally different question:
‘Do you think that the Bible is historically reliable?’ Well, that’s not the
question, Michael Jones: The question is: ‘Do you think that the Bible is
inerrant?’ and you’ve totally dodged and evaded this question.”
INSPIRING
PHILOSOPHY: “… than inerrancy, because I don’t even know what ‘inerrancy’ means,”
CIARAN: “You don’t
know what ‘inerrancy’ means. You know I find that… That’s staggering to me!”
INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY:
“… anymore.”
CIARAN: “‘anymore’
So you once knew what it meant. So, have you become more ignorant? Ha ha ha! Have
you… Usually, people acquire and augment their knowledge as they go on: they
don’t get more and more ignorant. So you used, so you used to know what
‘inerrancy’ meant, back when you probably believed in it, but now that you kind
of pretend that you don’t believe in it, anymore, you don’t. You’ve suddenly
lost the ability to discern what the term, ‘inerrancy’, means.”
INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY:
“It is different depending on who you talk to.”
CIARAN: “‘depending
upon who you talk to’ yes! If you ask an intellectually honest person what
‘inerrancy’ means, then they will define it, thusly. They will define it thus: ‘Does
it contain errors?’ ‘Is it not-errant?’ ‘in-’ means ‘not’; ‘errāre’ means
‘to make a mistake’. ‘Does the Bible contain a mistake?’ So, yes, it does
depend on who you talk to: if you talk to an intellectually honest person, they
will define it, something like this.”
CIARAN: “If you ask a Christian fundamentalist apologist, then they will try to redefine ‘inerrancy’ so as to account for all the errors. And this is why I call Michael Jones a Gish-galloper extraordinaire. This video has been a few seconds, and yet it has been full of errors. I don’t know how long this video I’m recording is[6], but it is significantly longer, than this video here. And, as I often think to myself: ‘one could just have an entire counter-apologetics channel devoted to critiquing Inspiring Philosophy, because he puts out so much error.”
[1]Koukl, Greg (2019). Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian
Convictions, 10th Anniversary Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan.
[2]Robert M. Price PhD discusses ‘functional inerrancy’ in Inerrant the Wind. The
function of Scripture is arbitrarily defined to be ‘The Good News of
Salvation’, and so innerancy only covers what is deemed to be ‘The Central
Gospel Message’ of Salvation through the atonement and Resurrection of Jesus
Christ. This allows the Bible to be saturated with errors in History, Science,
morality, and arithmetic, whilst remaining ‘functionally inerrant’.Cf.Price, Robert McNair. (2009). Inerrant the wind: The evangelical crisis
of biblical authority. Amherst, N.Y, New York: Prometheus Books.
[3]‘autographa’ is derived from
Latinised Greek. ‘autós’, in Ancient Greek means ‘himself’. ‘graphein’, in
Ancient Greek means ‘to write’. Thus, etymologically, the ‘autographa’ are ‘the
original manuscripts as handwritten by the original authors’.
[4] German for: ‘texts as they left
[the hands of the original authors when they were finished writing them].’ ‘aus’
is German for ‘out’. ‘gehen’ is German for ‘to go’. ‘ausgehen’ is German for ‘go
out’. ‘der Text’ is German for ‘the text’. Thus, ‘der Ausgangtext’,
etymologically, is ‘the text as it went out from [the original author when he/she
had completed writing it]’.
[5] Michael Jones is more interested
in talking about Biblical Reliability, because this is a much easier tenet of
Evangelical Christianity to defend than Biblical Inerrancy. If we take Licona’s
and Habermass’s approach, then what we can say is that, at a minimum, the Bible
gets a number of facts correct! These are the much-vaunted “minimal facts”! I
side with Pine Creek Doug: the best way to counter-apologise is simply to laugh
at Apologetics.
[6] It turned out to be sixteen
minutes and fifty-five seconds long.
I could listen to Dr. Robert McNair Price (1954-) all day. The MythVision YouTube channel, seems to be where this great sage hangs out, these days. I can listen to 30-minute talk after 30-minute talk of his for ages.
The poor man seems failed, though, and not long for this world. Saturn mows down all living things beneath his scythe to make way for a newer, fitter, generation, and, alas, Price will one day—like us all—be harvested by the Grim Reaper, Saturn. I hope and pray, though, that he might live for another decade or more.
At present I am reading his Jesus is Dead (2007), which is a critical examination of arguments made by Christian apologists in favour of the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ. What I love about this book, is that Price ridicules and mocks the apologists’ rogues gallery when such scorn be necessary. In this article, I shall examine what Price said concerning 1st Timothy 6:20 in a recent MythVision video.
Body:
The Independent Fundamentalist Anabaptist, Matt Powell, recently came out with a YouTube “movie” promoting creationism entitled: Science Falsely So Called (2018).
This film derives its title from the King James Version: Blayney Edition (1769) rendering of 1st Timothy 6:20:
‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:’
.
Let us examine 1st Timothy 6:20 as it appears in the Clementine Vulgate:
. My translation of the Clementine Vulgate is as follows:
‘O Timothy! Keep that which was placed down, avoiding the novelties of profane voices, and [the] oppositions of science falsely so named.’
Note how similar my translation of the Vulgate is to the KJV’s translation. In the KJV:
‘… the oppositions of science falsely so called.’
is basically a transliteration of the Vulgate’s:
‘…oppositiōnēs falsī nōminis scientiae.’
Thus, the KJV is not the literary bastion of anti-catholicism that the likes of the New-Independent-Fundamentalist-Anabaptist Pastor, Steven Anderson, would like you to think that it was. The Catholic Vulgate was a major influence on the KJV translators.
According to Price, the verse delineated suprā is a nod and a wink, by the author of 1st Timothy, to the Antitheses of Marcion of Pontus (circā 85 C.E.- circā 160 C.E.)
Marcionism, in a nutshell, was the rejection of the Old Testament, and its God, as evil.
Marcion wrote a book, in which he contrasted the Old-Testament God with the New-Testament God, and this—now lost—book was entitled: Antitheses.
Let us now examine 1st Timothy 6:20 in the Koine Greek of Scrivener’s (1894) Textus Receptus:
Let us examine the Greek verse, suprā, in Young’s Literal Translation (1862) of the Textus Receptus:
‘O Timotheus, the thing entrusted guard thou, avoiding the profane vain-words and opposition of the falsely-named knowledge,’
.
According to Dr. Bob, the Greek verse, suprā, is a warning by Saint Paul, against Marcion’s book: The Antitheses and against the gnosticism of the Marcionite sect. According to the author of 1st Timothy, the Marcionite sect has a false Gnosis, whereas the more orthodox Pauline sect, represented in the Book of 1st Timothy, has the true Gnosis; the true salvific knowledge.
Summary:
Doctor Robert McNair Price’s scholarly ouevre is fascinating. Price’s humorous demeanour, in both his speeches and his writings, rivets the hearer/reader to material that is at times difficult. We are discussing the turgid fields of Ancient History and Textual Criticism, after all. In Jesus is Dead (2007) Price argues that the Bible becomes much more interesting, and much more fun to study, once one jettisons the notion that this Bible constitutes an inerrant revelation from a God… and I strongly agree with him concerning this point.
I have heard it said—I think on a BBC radio-4 music documentary, or perhaps in a Cracked article—that this song, Hook (1994), by Blues Traveller, is a satire. Listen carefully, and one finds that Pachelbel’s Canon is playing in the background, which is: ‘the hook.’ This song appears to be a satire of the pop-music industry: that melodies need not be either elaborate nor original to sell well. Ironically, most people didn’t get the satire; thought that this was a brilliant tune, and this song became, financially, the band’s greatest hit.
The lyrics appear to be highly satirical as well:
‘It doesn’t matter what I say So long as I sing with inflection That makes you feel I’ll convey Some inner truth or vast reflection But I’ve said nothing so far And I can keep it up for as long as it takes And it don’t matter who you are If I’m doing my job then it’s your resolve that breaks
‘Because the hook brings you back I ain’t tellin’ you no lie The hook brings you back On that you can rely
‘There is something amiss I am being insincere In fact I don’t mean any of this Still my confession draws you near To confuse the issue I refer To familiar heroes from long ago No matter how much Peter loved her What made the Pan refuse to grow
‘Was that the hook brings you back I ain’t tellin’ you no lie The hook brings you back On that you can rely
‘Suck it in, suck it in, suck it in If you’re Rin Tin Tin or Anne Boleyn Make a desperate move or else you’ll win And then begin to see What you’re doing to me This MTV is not for free It’s so PC it’s killing me
‘So desperately I sing to thee of love Sure but also rage and hate and pain and fear of self And I can’t keep these feeling on the shelf I’ve tried, well no, in fact I lied Could be financial suicide but I’ve got too much pride inside To hide or slide I’ll do as I’ll decide and let it ride till until I’ve died And only then shall I abide by this tide Of catchy little tunes Of hip three minute ditties I wanna bust all your balloons
‘I wanna burn of all your cities to the ground But I’ve found, I will not mess around Unless I play then hey I will go on all day Hear what I say I have a prayer to pray That’s really all this was And when I’m feeling stuck and need a buck I don’t rely on luck
‘Because the hook brings you back I ain’t tellin’ you no lie The hook On that you can rely’
Maths and Comedy 