scripture, insects have for legs??? - Page 4

It's difficult enough to interpret some of the more challenging passages from antiquity due to historical distance and translation issues both, neverminding the static resulting from undertaking the task with one bias or another.

Like I said, Bee, I can see it may be a matter of interpretation
(without close observation), to see some front pairs of legs as
'feelers' (like hands) and others as 'walkers' (feet)...

But that does not disprove the thought that it is a complete 
nonsense to give such an ineffective and non-inclusive 'list',
or to misdescribe the type of creatures that ARE referred to.
Or to leave to the interpretation of the reader / listener the
wider details, such that we can come up with something like
rabbits being thought to be unclean / uneatable.  If we can do
that today, the audience could have done it at any time.  Even
if still in Aramaic.  'Babble' IS lacking in perfection !

it is a complete 
nonsense to give such an ineffective and non-inclusive 'list',
or to misdescribe the type of creatures that ARE referred to.

You have obviously missed your calling then hund, when you should have been schooling the rest of us in ancient semitic language, culture, and religion. Then again, if I do happen to have any of those questions, I could just pick up the phone and dial my sister who happens to have a PhD in that very discipline.

EDIT: The doctorate is actually in theololgy with a minor in ASR's focused on archeology.

Bee instead of introducing more and more arguments and blaming the capacity of the non believers to get the real point, translations, contexts....whatever just answer the freakin question........is the bible the innerrant and infallible word of god thst can not be added to or subtracted from lest we be dumped upon.


Or is it babble??

Hundmutter,

You are the one naming something a "list". Go ahead and call that non-sense because then I would agree with you! Look, you appear to me to have it set in your head that certain phrases you take from the proclaimed religious ones, create some kind of boundary of proof that I am locked and forced to oblige. 

There is much presumption too, to demand a certain delivery of a gift by you, I think, too. I don't think you quite understand that concept because the gift received by you, is never acknowledged. You make a wide leap too, about "interpretations" being left up to such arbitrary reasoning. That too, I will have to call non-sense.

You really need the ability to understand how time changes everything, and that individual understanding and expression is not static. Therefore your static definitions are again, your limitation, not mine.

vk4,

How can a word be anything else but a translation without being present to hear it?

So more words ever more accusing and derogatory. and still a refusal to answer a unambiguous question.

geeez nobody knows everything, most people are secure enough to just dunno or will just check.... you just attack thr person askin the question. trying to hide something?

all words are translations.....so if you read scripture instead of god speaking it to you ditrctly it is just a translation. your translation, mine and anyone else's are all valid?

vk4, I hardly see how my posts are an attack. I understand you must be feeling threatened by my cleverness or my opinions, and that surely drives your own fear and subsequent desire to discredit me, any way you can.

I think that the Word of God is a very interesting idea to discuss, actually. I would think it stimulating for the mind to discuss this with someone who is not interested in a personal attack as a way to bolster their own self confidence.
 

your translation, mine and anyone else's are all valid?

Papal infallibility, FTW !  

@Carlin.....  Does FTW = For the Win? 

LOL !  He was angling for that, I know. Still haunts him, that guilt thing is hard to shake!