(August 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 6:39 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You don't say!

I invite you to take a closer look at my signature.

I have sigs turned off. I appreciate the invite, but don't reckon it's worth the bother.

(August 9, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

*emphasis mine* (also put the relevant parts in blind-as-bat red)

I guess it was only inevitable for you to make a fool of yourself as people usually tend to do when they have no idea of the subject matter they are discussing.

Also I never insisted anything, I simply stated that 'beguile' and 'seduce' are synonymous, no if and's or but's about that, don't believe me? look in a thesaurus.

Just because two words are essentially synonymous doesn't mean that two words can't convey different subtleties (which is kind of why we HAVE multiple words that cover the same thing in the first place). I also noticed you missed the part of the Strong's Concordance entry that said it was usually translated as "decieved."

Furthermore, even if your if your interpretation of Nasha in Gen. 3:13 is accurate, it would be the only time in the Bible it would actually be used in the sort of sense you use it. Bear in mind, Genesis uses several other words related to sex, like Harah, Yada, or Shakab, while all three have G-rated meanings, but there are passages for all three words where context clearly indicates sex. Nasha, by contrast, does not. One would think that they would have used it in the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife.

It is usually translated as "decieved," and of its sixteen uses in the Old Testament, none have any sexual connotation, with the possible exception of Genesis 3:13, but I only make that exception because you have latched on to a half-baked interpretation and are holding on for dear life, because, for whatever reason, you've invested so much in the Eve/Serpent ship and want badly for that to be canon.  

Also, on your Virgin Birth claim:

• You have to really be stretching your interpretations of Genesis to imply that Genesis 3:15 somehow implies a Virgin Birth; the word used can easily be a general term for descendants. The only reason to read this meaning into it is a desire to force that meaning into a passage.
  
• As mentioned before, the word used for Virgin in Isaiah does not actually convey any connotations of actual virginity, especially given that it has a corresponding male word that doesn't convey the idea of actual virginity. The only reason to read this meaning into it is... well, you get the idea.
  
• Why can the whole "Christ as Messiah" thing not have ultimately been crafted by the Evangelists? Remember, we have only the Gospel accounts as evidence for the claims that he fulfilled any of those prophecies. With this in mind, why could they not have just taken prophecies they knew from the Old Testament and weaved whatever prophecies could have fitted into his life into his story?
  
• And, while we're on the subject, there were several crucial prophecies Jesus did not fulfull, including building the Third Temple, bringing the Jews back to Israel, bringing about World Peace, and spread knowledge of the God of Israel to all nations.
  

Why is God always so fixated on sex? Seems like a pretty perverted preoccupation if you ask me.

(August 9, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I invite you to take a closer look at my signature.

I have sigs turned off. I appreciate the invite, but don't reckon it's worth the bother.

It's not.

(August 9, 2016 at 7:07 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Just because two words are essentially synonymous doesn't mean that two words can't convey different subtleties (which is kind of why we HAVE multiple words that cover the same thing in the first place).

Exactly. Nuance. According to one point of view, "Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force" - I've never thought of that being interpreted to mean that he fucked it... Rule 34 notwithstanding.

(August 9, 2016 at 7:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why is God always so fixated on sex?  Seems like a pretty perverted preoccupation if you ask me.  

One might suppose it isn't god who has the fixation, yes?

Huggy, you've been ignoring me for 5 pages.

The text in the KJV says that her "thigh will rot." Given that it says if she's cleared of charges she will be able to procreate, this implies that if she's guilty she will become barren.

If a woman is already preggers and then is cursed so that she will never be able to bear children, what do you think happens to the precious little bundle of joy in her womb? Are you going to tell me that this passage, which clearly describes itself as being about marital jealousy, actually means to say that the woman will be allowed to give birth to her current child (provided she's preggers) even though the child is the result of adultery?

I predict that Huggy will ignore the context of the scripture here in favor of arguing semantics over the dictionary definition of the word, "rot".

(August 9, 2016 at 10:35 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I predict that Huggy will ignore the context of the scripture here in favor of arguing semantics over the dictionary definition of the word, "rot".

And from my experience, he'll probably get even that wrong and ignore any evidence that he has done anything short of PWN us. If Huggy Bear ever actually gets around to it.

If we need someone to explain to us what God "really meant", his attempts to communicate with us have failed.

Especially when we have millions of people all telling us different shit. In fact, I can't quite believe how arrogant it is to tell us what God means by his own supposed words. Except, of course, no one can even agree on what those words are with all these versions and translation errors.