I agreed that the definition could not mean tombstone in our very first discourse on this topic. It appeared you were arguing for it, then against it, and it further appears that you are now, once more, arguing for it to be correctly called a tombstone.
So I don't know if this is an actual language misconnect and English is not your first language or if the problem is on my end where I am having a lack of understanding for some odd reason or if you are defending something without making it clear what it is you are protecting - the few times I have seen this latter one happen, it was because someone was defending some certain doctrine and thought that to admit something to be true (that was apparently and clearly true to most people concerned) would damage that doctrine they adhered to or agreed with. The few times I've seen this last one happen, I honestly could see (but they couldn't) that to admit that certain truth would NOT, in fact, ruin and destroy their doctrine but they were very stubborn to the point that everyone thought there was a mental issue there when it was instead something else.
I can give a brief example. The one of these times, a man could not seem to understand what I meant when I said there were blocks of time between certain scriptures, even though it wasn't stated IN the scripture.
He kept insisting there was never, in a single place, an instance where there was a gap of time in between scriptures. When we tried to bring up Isaiah, where Jesus read from, and where He stopped, while at temple, and how there had been a gap of over 2,000 years and the gap was still going on, between where He stopped and the next verses, he was adamant that this was not so. Even tried to get him to admit that there was a gap of time between Genesis being written and Luke being written, but he insisted there was not. But I later came to find out that to admit to the true and simple thing we were stating would (in his mind) make the entire endtime doctrine he'd been taught be untrue and that it would crumble. So great was his defensiveness, which won out even over truth, that even when I gave him certain verses that could still protect his doctrine and keep it nailed up, (although my belief was opposite) he still would not unleash his jaw or admit a plain truth. And he seemed insane, but he was not. He was just scared. He wasn't even being arrogant, as some are. He was really just terrified because in his deep mind, he said, if A, then B, and I cannot tolerate B because it terrifies me, so I must lock my jaw on this and not let go until the danger to my sense of wellbeing passes.
So I don't know what our disconnect is, (which of the three things I mentioned) but you are not making sense to me even though you appear quite sane in your manner.
