The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

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?

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:

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

(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:

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?

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.