A Brief History of Tomorrow, page-1398

Hi wotsup

Nope, I provided more than enough to show how the dual use-sage of words often gets used and sometimes within the same area or verse, all done and dusted, over and out.


All you have shown me is that you manipulate the bible to suit your beliefs and then tell us that you don't interpret.

And just to show you how foolish you are, interpret the following command:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

So what does MAN mean in that sentence?

Male on male?
Man Kind on male?
Adam and Eve on male?

Of course you would now scream blue murder and it can only mean the first choice.

If I use your precept of what a MAN may mean, I could very well come to the conclusion that commandment is not referring to homosexuality at all. It is referring to group sex. So, if it is referring to group sex, where does that leave you with calling Penny Wong "Vomit" because she is a lesbian? Oh hang on, that raises another problem, now we have to interpret to believe "MAN" to mean woman. So tell us wotsup, when you called Penny "VOMIT" did you come to this verse and using your precept of MAN you took it to mean woman? Were you taking liberties with the bible?

I hope the above opens your eyes just a little bit of your use of concepts. You cannot use them interchangeable to make them suit your beliefs.

5.1 and 5.2 we were discussing are two different verses. You are making them one to suit your needs.

Sigh! I don't care how you interpret. But don't come out with the B.S. that you do not interpret and you alone have the key.

Pear