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.

funch, to me it's not really about dictionary definitions or the meaning in Hebrew or Greek, it's about you having a "definition of your own" for a word that does not go along with everyone else's perception of what the word means. If i don't agree that your definition is what would be considered by all other sentient beings as to it's meaning, then there is no foundation for a discussion. if you think salt is sweet and all others do not - how can you discuss a subject about salt if neither can agree on what it really is or means? It would lead to no logical or reasonable conclusions.

so i will continue if i must discuss issues with you, to ask what "your" >definitions< of things are that you may want to sojourne into debating on before i make a decision on whether or not i want to participate. thats all i'm saying.

in fact this debate could have been over quite quickly if i had understood your position that all knowledge A&E hd gained was by or when they ate the fruit. so you have taught me to try and understand more quickly just what your getting at or mean if we meet again.

"Tribo" I place you in the same situation that you tried to place me in and used your own definition to do it ..but as you notice that tactic place limitations on you and you couldn't answer the question which neutralize the debate..

and that is what will happen when you try to treat the dictionary like the bible as a way to control what can be said or how it can be said

and that is what I meant by you having a "google cut and paste" Bible mentality ..you think just because it's written in a book it becomes absolute without question ...you are trying to blame me for thinking beyond the collective of those that wrote the dictionary...didn't they once torture and murder those that once thought beyond the knowledge of the bible

wrong funch - i dont care if you think salt is sweet, if thats how you see and taste and define it for you thats ok. No problem - i'm just saying i'm not going to start a discussion with you about salt,

"Tribo" first you demand that I have to follow what's in the bible without question and then you demand that I have to follow the definitions in the dictionary without question and you tend to make threats of not debating useless your rules are follow ...doesn't that reminds you of something...a God complex perhaps?

you seem to have a lot of control issues going on there ...I always make it a point to debate rationally logically and to stay on topic..that should be what matters in a debate not all the limitations and rules and laws you keep trying to envoke ..

then you'd better go read some of your own past post funch, your the one with a it's funches way or the highway. not me. stay on topic?? you have no concept of staying on topic - show me one op that you stayed on topic on. oh - that is of course unless you mean stay on topic by your own definition.

"Tribo" all I'm saiding is lighten up with all the rules and laws and definitions you keep enacting as a form of control because that is not what debating is about or maybe you should just become one of the forum moderators ..then you can ban me and send me rude e-mail

funch, how can we discuss anything if we dont know or understand what it is the oher is meaning by thier words? i find with you i have to ask you to define, because of your personal take on things, [though i cant say all], differs from what most others take them to mean. i don't do this on other post with anyone else on here but you for the largest part, unless i am not sure that another says something that does not line up with the entire statement which leads me to ask what they are meaning by a word they use in the context of thier statement. so i'l lighten up if you post something where you say what you mean in the use of a particular word or phrase, if not we can just not reply to each others post fair enough?

"Tribo" like I said it now make no difference if you "google cut and paste" definitions any longer .. because I will use that same "google cut and paste" definition to ""control"" your response like I did the last time

CONTROL?? sorry funch, you never controlled anything, i was just being polite as to your response - no one, especially you, "controls" anything i say on here except for the site moderators. nice try though.

"Tribo" so I guess "polite" to you means to get angry and start threathening not to debate ...

funch i swear - the eveready battery people must have found your post here or else where and said to themselves " let's see if we can make a battery that never runs down like this guy funch - as i have said before you just keep going, and going and going and going - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.... and going and going and going ...

well "Tribo" I was trying to talk you through the conniption fit you were having ..now that you seem to recompose yourself ...are you well enough to get back on topic before the moderator Gods float in and lock up the thread

you said that Man had perception skills understanding and wisdom ..so can you "google cut and paste" from the bible and the dictionary where it says that all the other animals lacks those same properties

"Skyhook" if you and "Tribo" watch this video then you both will understand why I keep going and going
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE3KdcTgrno
then maybe you both will stop whining about it

don't have to funch, all you have to do is look at the story, god says he will make man in his likeness and image, does god have intellegence, wisdom, is he able to reason, think on his own respond on his own, well it says he does, so if man was given his likeness and image then so does man, he didn't have to go to school he was made with that same knowledge and wisdom as god had.

The animals? no! there is not a word about them having intellegence or cognizance or reason - why? because he made them to be and produce after their own kind and use the instinctual behavior given to them to do what each type does and has done and will continue to do til they cease to be.

the fact that it doesn't state it is the proof that they did not have it - take a look around funch - even today they don't have intellegence,cognizance,reason, if they don't have it now after thousands of years or being here then what would lead anyone to believe they did then? The "proof" is in the absence of any animal existing now that can be shown to have such, unless you believe animal life has degenerated since then - do you?