(December 2, 2012 at 12:49 am)Daniel Wrote: Not this again. So what? You still need evidence to assert your position. You can't prove a negative. If you want a more literal reading you have to show why the more literal reading makes more sense. Explain why arsenokoites means "male homosexual" in the context, when Paul could have used Porne instead, which means "prostitute". Even more damaging to your argument is the fact that Paul uses Porne twice in 1 Cor 6:15-16. Why the inconsistency?
I'm not sure if you're paying attention to what I'm saying at all. That's not at all what I'm arguing.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
