fyrephlie wrote: wow, you really have not read this thread at all have you? i have already apologized for the initial post, having been made quickly and with some flame intent. i was tired, and that is what came out.
Yes, you apologized, but then you immediately turned around and popped off with something else.
Are you sure you have read this thread?
fyrephlie wrote: read the thread have you? hmm... i already mentioned who i was raised by.
I have read and re-read this thread; all I can find from your posts are generic references to church and Sunday school, but no specifics about denomination. If I missed it, then please show me where. Otherwise, I must ask the perennial question?
Are you absolutely sure you have read this thread?
The Flat Earth II
fyrephlie wrote: hmm, since i ignored the rest of revelation 7, maybe you skipped 7:1 conveniently, which again points out that there are four corners on this flat flat world of ours. i'm going to thin this out a bit, but the point i was making was to the 'inerracy' [sic] of the bible
OK, let me get this straight. At first you argued that biblical cosmology teaches a round, flat, ??pancake? like? earth. Are you now arguing that it teaches a square, flat, waffle-shaped earth, instead? I wish you would make up your mind. My waffle iron is square, by the way. If you have a round one, then you will have to supply your own simile.
I skipped Revelation 7:1 because it had nothing to do with the subject, but if you insist upon bringing it up?
The Greek word translated ?corners? in Revelation 7:1 is
gonia, which literally means angles, divisions or the extremities. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four cardinal directions. In other words, those angels had
all the bases covered. This passage has nothing to do with geography, but the passages I quoted from Job do.
It is doubtful that any religious Jew would ever misunderstand the true meaning of ?four corners.? For nearly 2,000 years, religious Jews have faced the city of Jerusalem three times daily and chanted the following prayer:
Sound the great trumpet for our freedom,
Raise the banner for gathering our exiles,
And gather us together from the four corners of the earth into our own land.
I have demonstrated that the Bible is inerrant with regard to the shape of the earth. The only thing that?s falling flat around here are your lame arguments. Keep digging that functionally-illiterate hole of yours deeper!
fyrephlie wrote: i think it's so cute of you to make such a long winded point of it.
Even though I exceeded your short attention span, I am happy I managed to still be so entertaining!
P.S. Pulling the ?four corners? passages from the Old Testament will only serve to dig you even deeper still.
Slavery II
fyrephlie wrote: there are actually more passages in the bible that are pro slavery, than against it.= (very much indicitive [sic] of the time when they were written).
in all honesty, the bible is really all over the place with this subject (as it is with many subjects).
I see nothing for or against slavery in the passages you quoted, only ways to govern the institution. However, it is not my job to change how you choose to perceive things. As I said in my previous post,
Repo Man wrote: The other type of slavery, indentured servitude, is not condemned in the Bible. The Bible tolerates slavery of this type and the New Testament has guidelines for relations between slaves and their masters, but toleration cannot be logically equated with acceptance.
You can add the Old Testament to that list of guidelines. You have still failed to demonstrate that the Bible actually
promotes slavery.
Are you absolutely, positively sure you have read this thread?
The Mosaic Law lifted the nation of Israel above the moral cesspool of the Bronze Age civilizations surrounding them. Do some research into the practices of the people conquered by Israel and you will see what I mean. Furthermore, the law prepared the way for the Messiah. Today, in Christ, ? there is no {distinction between} Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all? (Colossians 3:11).
Menstruation II
You quote Leviticus 15 and make my point. Thank you. You abilities to cut-and-paste text are noteworthy. Now, do yourself a favor: read the
whole chapter and then re-read my thumbnail explanation of it. Or better yet, obtain a few good commentaries on Leviticus and do your own homework.
Are you absolutely, positively, one-hundred percent sure you have read this thread?
Regarding Leviticus 20:18 and Ezekiel 18. Having intercourse with menstruating women promotes disease. Especially since the Hebrew word translated ?menstruation? covers discharges that are disease-born as well. I have already talked about this in my last post. You break the cleanliness laws and promote disease, then you are outta the camp of Israel, pal!
Righteousness = following God?s laws + the added bonus of being protected from disease. Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Women in the Bronze Age were not unclean (both ceremonially and physically)
because they menstruated, but they were unclean only
when they menstruated. The ancient near east did not have all the fancy sanitation niceties we have today. Do I really, really need to go into detail here? For christsakes, they didn't even have toilet paper back then--which is why they even had cleanliness laws about where you should take a dump (c.f. Deuteronomy 23:12-13).
The
National Organization for Women should commend you for carrying their banner on this discussion board, but you have failed to demonstrate how menstruation in the Bible brands the fairer sex as intrinsically unclean.
[NOTE: I messed up the last sentence of my previous post in Menstruation Part I. Please see the edit there. Thank you.]
Seeds II
fyrephlie wrote: read the previous posts, we talked about it. talked about all of this already.
Yes, and the final word on it was from you.
fyrephlie wrote: Eh? Per textbook answer on the germination of seeds: "Under favorable conditions, the seed begins to germinate, and the embryonic tissues resume growth, developing towards a seedling." But, ok. it dies, I guess.
I corrected your error. Deal with it.
Are you absolutely, positively, one-hundred percent, have-a-note-from-your-mother sure you have read this thread?
Concluding Exchange of Insults
fyrephlie wrote: in other words you are too lazy to try and prove this point, and in hoping someone (like Shoku) will read the long post at the end of the thread, will think you know what you are talking about. kudos.
Actually, if you demonstrated the ability to make logically-argued, coherent points, then I might be interested in pursuing it. However, I have better things to do than spoon-feed someone who is obviously too lazy himself to even crack open a Greek Lexicon to look up the meaning of the word ?corners? in the original language. Why then, should I waste my time with you?
fyrephlie wrote: i wouldn't mind discussing something with you sometime though. when you aren't being such a condescending a$$.
Well then...
Don?t dish it out if you can?t take it.
End of discussion. Ta, ta, for now?
(See, I?m being cute and angry for you again. Maybe I'll bite your ankles next time. Grrrr.)