But wait, Rob. God, being perfect, cannot have failed. We humans are obvious the weak link.

Good point! I wonder what inept bastard made us then.

Not inept, he just doesn't give a shit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUrz4CtGuOM

(August 9, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: I'm not your search engine monkey. But here's a road map:

The Hebrew word 'alma' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) is generally translated as 'young woman'. Yes, most young women would have been presumed to be virgins, but . . .
The Hebrew word 'betulah' actually means 'virgin' and presumably would have been used in Isaiah if that is the plain meaning the author wished to convey.
Furthermore, each of the nine times 'alma' is used, the plain meaning is 'young woman'.


The Greek word used in the Septuagint (which would have been the source "Matthew" would have known of) is 'parthenos'. You're the amateur philologist. You figure it out.

The Messiah predates the new testament, the virgin birth was foretold back in Genesis buddy. Also the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews is also foretold in the old testament.

Are the Jews also complicit in this whole conspiracy narrative that you've created?

Were the Romans also involved in this conspiracy, since it was also foretold in the old testament that the Messiah would be crucified, and that "not a bone should be broken"?

*edit*

Also forgot to add that it would require 40 different writers over a span of 1500 years to be in collusion in order for all the pieces to fit together coherently.

Conspiracy narrative?!? Pointing out that the Septuagint is how knowledge of Hebrew scripture was largely disseminated in a time and area of the world in which Greek was the language read by the educated elites is hardly a conspiracy. It's not even the fleeting whiff of a conspiracy. But nice try.

(August 10, 2016 at 6:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Good point! I wonder what inept bastard made us then.

I was going to just let this go because I forgot that I'm speaking to the same crowd that was trying to argue that the government of Denmark was secular, despite it having a State sponsored religion  

If I couldn't get you guys to understand why Denmark's government was not secular in a thread over 20 pages long, when that is pretty much a black and white issue (state religion = NOT SECULAR), how do you figure that you're going to understand spiritual matters, especially when none of you believe in the spiritual?

(August 9, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: 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.

Actually you PWN'ed yourself.

You see when you insist on trying to debate a subject you know nothing about, you make yourself look like a fool.

Your first mistake was implying that the idea of governments being corporations was nonsense (a subject you clearly know nothing about, but don't let that stop you from bringing it up). Your exact quote:

(August 7, 2016 at 12:51 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: You see, Huggy Bear, there's a reason I didn't bother talking about the other two verses. It's very difficult for me to see how they could square with your interpretation. I have read writings by people who claim that governments are corporations, people are legally equivalent to boats, and you can get a 'get out of the Rule of Law free card' with semantics and putting random punctuation in your name, and they still make more sense than your arguments.

*emphasis mine*

The US government is in fact a corporation, no if and's or but's...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

Quote:(15) “United States” means—
     (A) a Federal corporation;
     (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
     © an instrumentality of the United States.

Are you willing to concede you were wrong on that point?

Your second mistake was being wrong on the interpretation of the word 'nasha', and I quote:

(August 9, 2016 at 9:56 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: It's also worth noting that I decided to look up the word he insists meant "seduction" in Strong's Concordance. Here's what I found:

nasha'

Pronunciation nä·shä' (Key)
Part of Speech verb

TWOT Reference: 1425
KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x
The KJV translates Strongs H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

   to beguile, deceive

       (Niphal) to be beguiled

       (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive

       (Qal) utterly (infinitive)

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly.

It's looking more and more like special pleading for him to insist it means "seduce."

*emphasis mine*
If it's "special pleading" for me to interpret 'nasha' as seduce, then explain why the heck "seduce" is listed under the definitions that YOU YOURSELF provided?

Quote:Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly

Are you willing to concede you were wrong on that point also?

If you can admit to the above, then I'd gladly address the rest of your points.

Wonderful. Now please explain why you've ignored Biblical abortion for the last 5+ pages.

Really?

(August 6, 2016 at 2:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: First of all Nihilist Virus did post from the NIV (specifically from the 27th verse) which used the word "miscarriage", show me which word in the KJV is equivalent to miscarriage and I'll address it.

secondly scripture had nothing to do with abortion. It was a test administered to women whose husbands accused them of adultery but had no proof, a pregnancy would sorta be proof don't you think?

(August 28, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Huggy76 Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 9:56 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: It's also worth noting that I decided to look up the word he insists meant "seduction" in Strong's Concordance. Here's what I found:

nasha'

Pronunciation nä·shä' (Key)
Part of Speech verb

TWOT Reference: 1425
KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x
The KJV translates Strongs H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

   to beguile, deceive

       (Niphal) to be beguiled

       (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive

       (Qal) utterly (infinitive)

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly.

It's looking more and more like special pleading for him to insist it means "seduce."

*emphasis mine*
If it's "special pleading" for me to interpret 'nasha' as seduce, then explain why the heck "seduce" is listed under the definitions that YOU YOURSELF provided?

Quote:Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָשָׁא nâshâʼ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly

Are you willing to concede you were wrong on that point also?

If you can admit to the above, then I'd gladly address the rest of your points.

Notice that the definition includes a concordance of the way it's used in the Bible. If the authors wanted to say Eve was literally seduced, sexually, by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, there were words they would have used; the old standby "Yada" (know) could be a good choice. But they used Nasha, and let's see how it's translated elsewhere in the Bible.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x

The KJV translates Strongs H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).

In the Bible, it is usually translated as "decieve." The sole time in the Bible is translated into anything that could potentially resemble anything sexual is in that verse, and, given that it seems most of the translations using that word are based around the King James Bible, I'm inclined to consider it was the translators' committee's idea to use that word. Why? Well, let's look at this little object lesson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryAyTzGA-dk

This might seem a bit off topic at first, but, if you look closely, you'll see why. You see, in Into The Woods, especially in this film version, The Big Bad Wolf is played like a sexual predator. Some stage versions go so far as to give him a giant, dangling, penis (Disney, thankfully, had the sense to avoid this little costuming choice). However, it should be noted that there's no indication that he ever actually sexually assaults Red Riding Hood. He simply eats her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jExGlGuYOM8

So, why did Sondheim choose to have the Big Bad Wolf portrayed in such a way that he comes across like a child rapist even though he doesn't actually do anything to her that hasn't been done in countless other versions?

When you can have an answer to that, you'll understand why the translators of the King James Bible translated "nasha" as "beguiled." Because it will be the same goddamn answer.

(August 28, 2016 at 7:37 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

---

(August 28, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Huggy76 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
If it's "special pleading" for me to interpret 'nasha' as seduce, then explain why the heck "seduce" is listed under the definitions that YOU YOURSELF provided?


Are you willing to concede you were wrong on that point also?

If you can admit to the above, then I'd gladly address the rest of your points.

Notice that the definition includes a concordance of the way it's used in the Bible.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x

The KJV translates Strongs H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).

In the Bible, it is usually translated as "decieve." The sole time in the Bible is translated into anything potentially resembling anything sexual is in that verse, and, given that it seems most of the translations using that word are based around the King James Bible, I'm inclined to consider it was the translators' committee's idea to use that word. Why? Well, let's look at this little object lesson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryAyTzGA-dk

This might seem a bit off topic at first, but, if you look closely, you'll see why. You see, in Into The Woods, especially in this film version, The Big Bad Wolf is played like a sexual predator. Some stage versions go so far as to give him a giant, dangling, penis (Disney, thankfully, had the sense to avoid this little costuming choice). However, it should be noted that there's no indication that he ever actually sexually assaults Red Riding Hood. He simply eats her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jExGlGuYOM8

So, why did Sondheim choose to have the Big Bad Wolf portrayed in such a way that he comes across like a child rapist even though he doesn't actually do anything to her that hasn't been done in countless other versions?

When you can have an answer to that, you'll understand why the translators of the King James Bible translated "nasha" as "beguiled." Because it will be the same goddamn answer.

---

Oh, so you're going to dodge and refuse to answer the 2 questions I specifically asked you?

Question #1: Were you wrong on implying that governments were not corporations?

Question #2: Were you wrong on implying that 'seduce' was not included in the definition of the word 'nasha'?