Thirty silver pennies in a fundamentally religious and Catholic work

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

“Thirty silver pennies cannot be dissected into three points”

Oh really! What an absolutely ludicrous.statement!
Honestly I feel like I'm conversing with a five year old.

Oh look! It's Balfrog the Fallacy Farmer come to spread more manure from the Supriya Seth, LLC (Limited Literary Currency) pile of ponderous allegorical offal and digital dung.

I still can't believe anyone with an ounce of sense (or self respect, for that matter) other than a self-spammer (who, I am sure, lack any dignity whatsoever) would simply return every month or so to plop another implausible article from a different and totally separate entity, and then go to such lengths to defend the indefensible, particularly when numerous other posters pointed out the imbecility of Seth's claims.

If you are not Seth, then you should be in her employ and earn a minimum wage for the spam work you do. I assume it's the only job you currently have, given the disastrous gold-farming market collapse in World of Warcraft.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Just to let you know - very slowly – so that you can take it in:

There are three individual facts associated to the phrase: 'thirty silver pennies'.
Each fact can have a tangency against it.

Very slowly:

Fact 1: There is the number '30'.

Fact 2: There is a metal called 'silver'

Fact 3: There are the coins that are 'pennies'.

Is that slow enough?
So onward to meaningful comparisons:

Example 1: For the phrase '30 gold coins' – that results in two tangecies against the Biblical tale
Example 2: For the phrase '40 copper coins'– that would result in one tangency.
etc., etc.

The less the number of tangencies – the less of an alluring match. Is that plain enough? Do you get it now?

In your pretzel logic, the flawed mathematics work for you (much in the same way George Orwell's tortured character is forced to admit 2+2=5). But in your rabid defense of a half-arsed quotient, you have allowed me to outpoint you.

I get three points by your logic:

30 (the magic number)
Shekels (a coin)
Silver (what Shekels were comprised of)

But you do not get three points, you do not pass GO, you do not collect 30 pieces of silver. My allegory contains the requisite number (30), the metal of said coinage (silver), but also the appropriate biblical currency. Let me explain in the simplest terms, because mathematics is not your strong suit, and evidently logical argumentation escapes you as well.

There is not an ounce (Troy or otherwise) of "betrayal" involved in the convoluted manner by which we derive "30 Silver Pennies", but we must also dock you for the use of the word "pennies" which is not a term in use during Jesus' time and is Anglo-Saxon in origin. "Thirty pieces of silver" is the appropriate biblical jargon, and if you study biblical terminology, a silver shekel was most likely the currency used for Judas' betrayal (either Tyrian shekels or the Antiochan tetradrachm).

But no one is betrayed in the convoluted allotment of how Tolkien came to the sum after deductions of rent and fair payment by Butterbur, as is in blood money used in the betrayal by Judas. And thus, equating Tolkien's 30 silver pennies to the biblical 30 pieces of silver loses whatever allegorical directness and concision it might have otherwise. The innkeeper recompenses the wrong done by the theft of the Hobbit's animals, which is the antithesis of betrayal.

Yes, recompense for the wrong done, which, again for the attention-deficited spammers who blindly push their addled agenda in their part-time posting here in order to advertise click-bait, has nothing whatsoever to do with an allegorical basis for the spammer's point.

Therefore, I maintain the biblical passage:

Exodus 21:32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, its owner will pay the price -- thirty shekels -- to their master, and the ox will be stoned.

has more of an allegorical basis for Tolkien's direct plot point and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the plot than does your tenuous harping on Judas' betrayal. It has soundly beaten your master's theory; but humorously, I made up the allegorical connection -- which is something beyond your limited and wholly partisan comprehension, evidently. And that is the humorous aspect of it all.

I will gladly accept your apology in advance of you actually understanding why it is necessary for you to apologize....to Tolkien for warping his works. No hard feelings.