100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: awareness | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
FUNCH: "Tribo" it's no guess work involved because no matter how you look at it God had to pop the knowedlege in to Adams and Eve head because no one else was around to teach them how to cultivate the land tribo: if thats the case then thats the case but whatever Knowledge he popped into their head was more than that of an ant or bat or monkey. otherwise like i say he was wasting his time even creating man for his purposes if others as smart as him had already been created. if you cant see it you cant see it, not my problem. Funches: and since you can't find otherwise in the bible means that Adam and Eve before eating from the Tree of Knowledge was no smarter than any of the other animals in the garden of Eden which means that God punished man because he himself created them as simpletons with not enough sense to comprehend right or wrong.. TRIBO: your opinion, have at it. What i go by is the words and actions of A&E in the myth/story, thats what i work from, i see reason, intellegence,cognizance, before the fruit - you don't, good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if thats the case then thats the case but whatever Knowledge he popped into their head was more than that of an ant or bat or monkey. otherwise like i say he was wasting his time even creating man for his purposes if others as smart as him had already been created. if you cant see it you cant see it, not my problem. it's not that I can't see it ..it's just that you can't prove it ..you just admitted that the bible do not reveal how Adam and Eve learn how to cultivate the land ...since God didn't give them "Green Acres" farmer lessons only means he popped the knowledge into their heads just like he did for the leaf cutter ant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sat 09/06/08 08:30 PM
|
|
if that's the case then that's the case but whatever Knowledge he popped into their head was more than that of an ant or bat or monkey. otherwise like i say he was wasting his time even creating man for his purposes if others as smart as him had already been created. if you cant see it you cant see it, not my problem. it's not that I can't see it ..it's just that you can't prove it ..you just admitted that the bible do not reveal how Adam and Eve learn how to cultivate the land ...since God didn't give them "Green Acres" farmer lessons only means he popped the knowledge into their heads just like he did for the leaf cutter ant funch your equating this popping in of >knowledge< as you state, as to being equal to the different species of animals - do you really believe that man is no smarter than an ant? or that what were capable of learning/knowing being cognizant of, is the same for other animals? Do you really believe that other animals are capable of what mans capable of? do you believe or think they can learn other than what there programmed to do instinctually? do you believe the leaf cutter can do anything but what is does? or do you think that if they watch and study bee's they can become bee's? or if monkeys study man they can become man? if the answers are yes to these questions then theres nothing left to discuss - if there no then why do you concider first man to be a such a ignorant creature? you sure read it differnt than me if you do. which is ok but not worth debating if its the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if that's the case then that's the case but whatever Knowledge he popped into their head was more than that of an ant or bat or monkey. otherwise like i say he was wasting his time even creating man for his purposes if others as smart as him had already been created. if you cant see it you cant see it, not my problem. it's not that I can't see it ..it's just that you can't prove it ..you just admitted that the bible do not reveal how Adam and Eve learn how to cultivate the land ...since God didn't give them "Green Acres" farmer lessons only means he popped the knowledge into their heads just like he did for the leaf cutter ant funch your equating this popping in of >knowledge< as you state, as to being equal to the different species of animals - do you really believe that man is no smarter than an ant? or that what were capable of learning/knowing being cognizant of, is the same for other animals? Do you really believe that other animals are capable of what mans capable of? do you believe or think they can learn other than what there programmed to do instinctually? do you believe the leaf cutter can do anything but what is does? or do you think that if they watch and study bee's they can become bee's? or if monkeys study man they can become man? if the answers are yes to these questions then theres nothing left to discuss - if there no then why do you concider first man to be a such a ignorant creature? you sure read it differnt than me if you do. which is ok but not worth debating if its the case. "Tribo" you fail to notice that the things you keep describing are what Man was capable of doing "after" eating from the Tree of Knowledge only after gaining knowledge from the tree was man then capable of rising above the animals because he has obtain the knowledge to do so look at it this way ...what it another animal ate from the tree and gain the knowledge before Adam or Eve did .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUNCH:
"Tribo" you fail to notice that the things you keep describing are what Man was capable of doing "after" eating from the Tree of Knowledge only after gaining knowledge from the tree was man then capable of rising above the animals because he has obtain the knowledge to do so look at it this way ...what it another animal ate from the tree and gain the knowledge before Adam or Eve did TRIBO REPLY: AHH, now i see your reasoning here funch. Your presuming the "TREE" gave A&E "KNOWLEDGE" but that's not what it gave them they were already cognizant beings capable of all i have said. Your misreading, misunderstanding, what took place, what happened. You have a faulty perception of what is being said. GEN: CHPT 2 vs-9 FROM THE LXX [Septuagint} 9 And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil. "and the tree of ""learning""" the >>knowledge """OF"""<< [what?] >>>""good and evil""<<< [not knowledge in general] The tree/fruit, was not for >endowing< general "knowledge" in and of itself, as we are concidering knowledge. Knowledge in and of itself can be concidered good or bad or both. The only "knowledge" they were "learning" or becoming "AWARE" of, was the difference "OF" or between >>"good and evil"<< - Not how to think or be cognizant, or rational or reasonable. We discussed this already in another thread. What they gained by partaking of the fruit was the awareness of what "GOD" concidered evil. They became ""aware"" of thier nakedness in the sense of being aware of new thoughts of lust they had not had before they ate it. thier "desires" were not as they had been before it happened. Before this took place they were like children who play together or bath together with no real thought given to nakedness like you would see in amazon tribes or other cultures where they were brought up naked without clothes or even we as kids if we had siblings, their thought or curiosity of genitals were not even their until the fall. In other words nakedness did not bring arousal or thoughts or sexual behavior to thier minds. They were not looking at the body as something sexually desirable in a self gratifying way - which is why i don't believe they had sex till after the fall as many do, that is nothing but mans fallen nature to think such. thier hearts and minds were not ridden with thoughts such as these till after they ate of the tree. Now you can think as you will, but there is nothing to support your take on this as being the receiving of cognizance or rationale, or reason, we see eve using reason when the serpent says to her -" And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate," Chapter 3 1 Now the serpent was the most crafty of all the brutes on the earth, which the Lord God made, and the serpent said to the woman, Wherefore has God said, Eat not of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not surely die. 5 For God knew that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened, and ye would be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate. 7 And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons to go round them. if you read in context you can see that she was "persuaded by the serpent to eat the fruit, even though she had just told the serpent - ""We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."" Showing that she most definitely understood the command god had given her and adam. >>if we eat we will die.<< not only that but we also see that it says - "neither shall ye "TOUCH IT" lest ye die - so honestly when she touched it is when she began to spiritually died, not physically, another misunderstanding by many. Their childlike innosence was forever taken away at that time never to return. Their minds were open to new realms of thought that they had not thought before, but none of these had anything to do with gaining "knowledge" as to the way your thinking of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUNCH: "Tribo" you fail to notice that the things you keep describing are what Man was capable of doing "after" eating from the Tree of Knowledge only after gaining knowledge from the tree was man then capable of rising above the animals because he has obtain the knowledge to do so look at it this way ...what it another animal ate from the tree and gain the knowledge before Adam or Eve did TRIBO REPLY: AHH, now i see your reasoning here funch. Your presuming the "TREE" gave A&E "KNOWLEDGE" but that's not what it gave them they were already cognizant beings capable of all i have said. Your misreading, misunderstanding, what took place, what happened. You have a faulty perception of what is being said. GEN: CHPT 2 vs-9 FROM THE LXX [Septuagint} 9 And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil. "and the tree of ""learning""" the >>knowledge """OF"""<< [what?] >>>""good and evil""<<< [not knowledge in general] The tree/fruit, was not for >endowing< general "knowledge" in and of itself, as we are concidering knowledge. Knowledge in and of itself can be concidered good or bad or both. The only "knowledge" they were "learning" or becoming "AWARE" of, was the difference "OF" or between >>"good and evil"<< - Not how to think or be cognizant, or rational or reasonable. We discussed this already in another thread. What they gained by partaking of the fruit was the awareness of what "GOD" concidered evil. They became ""aware"" of thier nakedness in the sense of being aware of new thoughts of lust they had not had before they ate it. thier "desires" were not as they had been before it happened. Before this took place they were like children who play together or bath together with no real thought given to nakedness like you would see in amazon tribes or other cultures where they were brought up naked without clothes or even we as kids if we had siblings, their thought or curiosity of genitals were not even their until the fall. In other words nakedness did not bring arousal or thoughts or sexual behavior to thier minds. They were not looking at the body as something sexually desirable in a self gratifying way - which is why i don't believe they had sex till after the fall as many do, that is nothing but mans fallen nature to think such. thier hearts and minds were not ridden with thoughts such as these till after they ate of the tree. Now you can think as you will, but there is nothing to support your take on this as being the receiving of cognizance or rationale, or reason, we see eve using reason when the serpent says to her -" And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate," Chapter 3 1 Now the serpent was the most crafty of all the brutes on the earth, which the Lord God made, and the serpent said to the woman, Wherefore has God said, Eat not of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not surely die. 5 For God knew that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened, and ye would be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate. 7 And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons to go round them. if you read in context you can see that she was "persuaded by the serpent to eat the fruit, even though she had just told the serpent - ""We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."" Showing that she most definitely understood the command god had given her and adam. >>if we eat we will die.<< not only that but we also see that it says - "neither shall ye "TOUCH IT" lest ye die - so honestly when she touched it is when she began to spiritually died, not physically, another misunderstanding by many. Their childlike innosence was forever taken away at that time never to return. Their minds were open to new realms of thought that they had not thought before, but none of these had anything to do with gaining "knowledge" as to the way your thinking of. Funches; And this - from a professed unbeliever. Better move on - you're losing this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches; And this - from a professed unbeliever. Better move on - you're losing this one. "Eljay" a professed unbeliever? ..er..."Tribo" is more like a believer in denial ..but anyway I've learn that once people start with the "google cut and paste" of definitions from the dictionary and them start demanding people follow them then the debate is over to demand that one has to follow what's in the bible I can agree on but then to use the same bible mentality and demand one follow exactly what's in the dictionary is not the nature of the debate because the definitions of the dictionary is not absolute or now words or no new meaning would never be added .. the dictionary should not be treated like a bible ..because then what's left to debate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my last reply to you had nothing to do with copy and paste totally scripture based - knowledge - gnosis - as interpreted in the hebew/greek book LXX - so don't accuse me of demanding webster definitions. your wrong as to your take on what knowledge was gained by eating the fruit, just that simple. thus my last reply. debate over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my last reply to you had nothing to do with copy and paste totally scripture based - knowledge - gnosis - as interpreted in the hebew/greek book LXX - so don't accuse me of demanding webster definitions. your wrong as to your take on what knowledge was gained by eating the fruit, just that simple. thus my last reply. debate over. "Tribo" now you know you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary ...I mean the evidence that you did is in this thread for all to see ... you my friend have a "google cut and paste" addiction ...the first step to a speedy recovery is to admit it ..and then a 12 step program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my last reply to you had nothing to do with copy and paste totally scripture based - knowledge - gnosis - as interpreted in the hebew/greek book LXX - so don't accuse me of demanding webster definitions. your wrong as to your take on what knowledge was gained by eating the fruit, just that simple. thus my last reply. debate over. "Tribo" now you know you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary ...I mean the evidence that you did is in this thread for all to see ... you my friend have a "google cut and paste" addiction ...the first step to a speedy recovery is to admit it ..and then a 12 step program  ok funch, next time we will define by our own ideas of what the word means to us individually - im of to the GCP addiction clinic for step one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/08/08 10:45 AM
|
|
Funches; And this - from a professed unbeliever. Better move on - you're losing this one. "Eljay" a professed unbeliever? ..er..."Tribo" is more like a believer in denial ..but anyway I've learn that once people start with the "google cut and paste" of definitions from the dictionary and them start demanding people follow them then the debate is over to demand that one has to follow what's in the bible I can agree on but then to use the same bible mentality and demand one follow exactly what's in the dictionary is not the nature of the debate because the definitions of the dictionary is not absolute or now words or no new meaning would never be added .. the dictionary should not be treated like a bible ..because then what's left to debate Funches, so you are saying that people can demand others to follow the Bible but that they can ignore the meanings of words in the Dictionary? What makes the Bible more important? Don't say that it was written by God because that won't fly. The Bible was written by men, probably con artists. Any visions or miracles witnessed by anyone and written about in the Bible were all "delusions" or bald faced lies. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my last reply to you had nothing to do with copy and paste totally scripture based - knowledge - gnosis - as interpreted in the hebew/greek book LXX - so don't accuse me of demanding webster definitions. your wrong as to your take on what knowledge was gained by eating the fruit, just that simple. thus my last reply. debate over. "Tribo" now you know you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary ...I mean the evidence that you did is in this thread for all to see ... you my friend have a "google cut and paste" addiction ...the first step to a speedy recovery is to admit it ..and then a 12 step program ok funch, next time we will define by our own ideas of what the word means to us individually - im of to the GCP addiction clinic for step one. "Tribo" I will help you make it through your "google cut and paste" addiction like I helped "Feralcatlady" with hers .. after that I will help you with your "Christian in denial" affliction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches, so you are saying that people can demand others to follow the Bible but that they can ignore the meanings of words in the Dictionary? What makes the Bible more important? Don't say that it was written by God because that won't fly. The Bible was written by men, probably con artists. Any visions or miracles witnessed by anyone and written about in the Bible were all "delusions" or bald faced lies. JB "JennieBean" it was 'Tribo" that demanded that people follow the Bible exactly during a debate ...I agree with that because the bible is a belief not to be proved or disprove but to be debated logically ..so if it is followed exactly any conclusion that arises that may contradict the bible can not be disputed ..that's what I was trying to do with that "Third Testament" thread but the dictionary is not the bible and the knowledge within it shouldn't be thought of as being absolute or never changing ... the knowledge in soceity is at constant debate and should never stagnate within the limitations of the dictionary .. if so you may as well bring back book burning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches, so you are saying that people can demand others to follow the Bible but that they can ignore the meanings of words in the Dictionary? What makes the Bible more important? Don't say that it was written by God because that won't fly. The Bible was written by men, probably con artists. Any visions or miracles witnessed by anyone and written about in the Bible were all "delusions" or bald faced lies. JB "JennieBean" it was 'Tribo" that demanded that people follow the Bible exactly during a debate ...I agree with that because the bible is a belief not to be proved or disprove but to be debated logically ..so if it is followed exactly any conclusion that arises that may contradict the bible can not be disputed ..that's what I was trying to do with that "Third Testament" thread but the dictionary is not the bible and the knowledge within it shouldn't be thought of as being absolute or never changing ... the knowledge in soceity is at constant debate and should never stagnate within the limitations of the dictionary .. if so you may as well bring back book burning no, but it has to at least be agreed upon as to what a words definition at the time and place it was used within a text - any text - as to what it's meaning is/was. knowledge [dah'-ath] in the hebrew of that time meant - perception, skill,understanding,wisdom. If you then compare that to todays dictionary meaning you can find the same - plus someothers, either way it has to be that the definitions of what's debated as to the meaning of the words used be ageed upon funch, otherwise their can be no conclusion to the debate, you will see it your way by your meanings and i or others will see mine. so whats the point? why bother? so in the future if you insist on using your own personal definitions that are not what the bulk of mankind accepts them as, i will refrain from entering the posted thread. that way you can live in your own little funch universe as god/king. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my last reply to you had nothing to do with copy and paste totally scripture based - knowledge - gnosis - as interpreted in the hebew/greek book LXX - so don't accuse me of demanding webster definitions. your wrong as to your take on what knowledge was gained by eating the fruit, just that simple. thus my last reply. debate over. "Tribo" now you know you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary ...I mean the evidence that you did is in this thread for all to see ... you my friend have a "google cut and paste" addiction ...the first step to a speedy recovery is to admit it ..and then a 12 step program ok funch, next time we will define by our own ideas of what the word means to us individually - im of to the GCP addiction clinic for step one. "Tribo" I will help you make it through your "google cut and paste" addiction like I helped "Feralcatlady" with hers .. after that I will help you with your "Christian in denial" affliction C'mon funch, like i said, whether or not i paste a dictionary definition or just write it out it's going to be the same be it modern day or ancient, your just being funch, you don't know how to be otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.......... REVELATION............... ........CHAPTER 22......... 1 And he shewed me a pure river of a water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the cleaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. 6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. 7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. THE END ``````````````````````` The Book in Revelations 22 , is referring to : THE WHOLE WORD OF GOD........... GIVEN TO MAN TO WRITE DOWN....... UNDER THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT !!! The WHOLE BIBLE ......NOT JUST PARTS OF THE BIBLE....BUT THE WHOLE WHOLE WHOLE WORD OF GOD ...IS THE BOOK!!!! Although there may be different translations, THE WORD OF GOD( the BOOK or the BIBLE), REMAINS UNALTERED !!! AND IF PERCHANCE, THERE IS AN ALTERED VERSION OUT THERE,THAT DOES NOT LINE UP WITH THE BOOK OF THE WORD OF GOD( THE BIBLE )....THEN IT IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD!!  19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. again MS: ""this [singular] book of [what?]>> ""prophecy""<<, was or is the whole bible a "book of prophecy'? no - its referring only to revelations you and deb are dead wrong! >>>>>God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city<<<<<, >>which are described in this book.<< are the ""tree of life and the holy city"" as described in revelations found anywhere else in the rest of the bible???? NO! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, but it has to at least be agreed upon as to what a words definition at the time and place it was used within a text - any text - as to what it's meaning is/was. knowledge [dah'-ath] in the hebrew of that time meant - perception, skill,understanding,wisdom. If you then compare that to todays dictionary meaning you can find the same - plus someothers, either way it has to be that the definitions of what's debated as to the meaning of the words used be ageed upon funch, otherwise their can be no conclusion to the debate, you will see it your way by your meanings and i or others will see mine. so whats the point? why bother? so in the future if you insist on using your own personal definitions that are not what the bulk of mankind accepts them as, i will refrain from entering the posted thread. that way you can live in your own little funch universe as god/king. ok then 'Tribo" since you like to google cut and paste from the bible and the dictionary at the same time then "google cut and paste" where it says from both books that animals lack perception skills understanding and wisdom |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches; And this - from a professed unbeliever. Better move on - you're losing this one. "Eljay" a professed unbeliever? ..er..."Tribo" is more like a believer in denial Interesting perspective. I'll see how this plays out ..but anyway I've learn that once people start with the "google cut and paste" of definitions from the dictionary and them start demanding people follow them then the debate is over to demand that one has to follow what's in the bible I can agree on but then to use the same bible mentality and demand one follow exactly what's in the dictionary is not the nature of the debate because the definitions of the dictionary is not absolute or now words or no new meaning would never be added .. the dictionary should not be treated like a bible ..because then what's left to debate We're in total agreement here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, but it has to at least be agreed upon as to what a words definition at the time and place it was used within a text - any text - as to what it's meaning is/was. knowledge [dah'-ath] in the hebrew of that time meant - perception, skill,understanding,wisdom. If you then compare that to todays dictionary meaning you can find the same - plus someothers, either way it has to be that the definitions of what's debated as to the meaning of the words used be ageed upon funch, otherwise their can be no conclusion to the debate, you will see it your way by your meanings and i or others will see mine. so whats the point? why bother? so in the future if you insist on using your own personal definitions that are not what the bulk of mankind accepts them as, i will refrain from entering the posted thread. that way you can live in your own little funch universe as god/king. ok then 'Tribo" since you like to google cut and paste from the bible and the dictionary at the same time then "google cut and paste" where it says from both books that animals lack perception skills understanding and wisdom neither book states that - besides the proponent of the question has the burden of proof - so it would be up to you to show me proof from both sources that this is the case. personally funch i could care less about your thinking that animals have your concept of "wisdom" or "understanding" etc.. the debate was about what type of knowledge was recieved by A&E at the time they partook of the fruit, once i understood your concept of what you were saying as to the type knowledge they recieved then i answered. any other semantics your concerned with you can take up with someone who cares. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches, so you are saying that people can demand others to follow the Bible but that they can ignore the meanings of words in the Dictionary? What makes the Bible more important? Don't say that it was written by God because that won't fly. The Bible was written by men, probably con artists. Any visions or miracles witnessed by anyone and written about in the Bible were all "delusions" or bald faced lies. JB "JennieBean" it was 'Tribo" that demanded that people follow the Bible exactly during a debate ...I agree with that because the bible is a belief not to be proved or disprove but to be debated logically ..so if it is followed exactly any conclusion that arises that may contradict the bible can not be disputed ..that's what I was trying to do with that "Third Testament" thread but the dictionary is not the bible and the knowledge within it shouldn't be thought of as being absolute or never changing ... the knowledge in soceity is at constant debate and should never stagnate within the limitations of the dictionary .. if so you may as well bring back book burning and just what do you do funch when the book your reading does not define a word but just gives a statement or a scene such as A&E's case without specifying what type of knowledge they may have? you can do no more than go by what the word has meant since it was used, in this case it meant they had the cognizance to name the animals, care for the garden, and dominion over all the rest of gods creation[caretakers] the actual word "knowledge" is not used for them or any animal, only for the tree itself, and i've already explained what type of knowledge was being talked of or given in that instance. debate over funch, take it up if you want on your own post. |
|
|
|
|
