-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A & E were not the first. The Bible tells me so
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Interestingly the word plenish can mean to resupply!
plenish\
(ˈplɛnɪʃ
— vb ( Scot ) ( tr ) to fill, stock, or resupply plenish [ˈplɛnɪʃ] vb (tr) Scot to fill, stock, or resupply [from Old French pleniss-, from plenir, from Latin plēnus full]
plenisher n
plenishment n
Last edited:
No, I think your argument is silly. I also find it to be either grossly deceitful or pathetically incompetent. If you intend to argue by laundry list, at least make it an honest one.
For example, while it is true that the KJV uses 'replenish', you carefully omit the fact that the NKJV uses 'fill', as does the RSV, NRSV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, YLT, DBY, HNV, Alter, Schocken (FOX), and NICOT (Hamilton).
So too the translations offered by the JPS, the Judaica Press, and Friedman's translation and commentary.
Also using 'fill' is the New English Translation of the Septuagint, as well as both Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as translated by the International Organization for Targumic Studies.
So it turns out that what we have from you is both shallow and shameful -- an argument that is not merely juvenile but also one based on a lie of omission.
Last edited:
(And then, of course, there's Genesis 1:22 ...)
Skwim
Veteran Member
Please!!!
not"grossly deceitful or pathetically incompetent"
Anything but those. :thud:
"Carefully omit"??? Hardly. Those simply don't use the word, so why should I mention them? If you were to list the names of green vegetables would you mention that carrots and tomatoes aren't green? You're grasping at straws here.
Why not throw out a few more ad hominems to try to tar me? Oops, guess you already have. So it turns out that what we have from you is both shallow and shameful -- an argument ad hominem that is not merely juvenile but also one based on an inability to rise above your need to be right at any cost.
Hey that's fun.
"replenish" is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew mâlê, as are "fill" and "refill" (ESV and NIV)
Last edited:
(emphasis mine)Please!!!"grossly deceitful or pathetically incompetent"Anything but those. :thud:
"Carefully omit"??? Hardly. Those simply don't use the word, so why should I mention them? If you were to list the names of green vegetables would you mention that carrots and tomatoes aren't green? You're grasping at straws here.
Oops, guess you already have. So it turns out that what we have from you is both shallow and shameful -- an argument ad hominem that is not merely juvenile but also one based on an inability to rise above your need to be right at any cost.
Hey that's fun.Give me another one.
One more word you should look up: Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skwim
Veteran Member
I don't know why I should unless you believe I misused it. If that's the case, then FYI from your Wikipedia link:
"Ad hominem
Types
Abusive
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
Of course, if you don't think describing me as "grossly deceitful or pathetically incompetent" "shallow and shameful" with arguments "not merely juvenile but also one based on a lie . . ." amounts to"personal abuse or personal attacks" and "involves insulting or belittling" then I guess we' have different ideas of what amounts to an ad hominem argument. Types
Abusive
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
Y-E-S :yes:
If that's the case, then FYI from your Wikipedia link:"Ad hominemOf course, if you don't think describing me as "grossly deceitful or pathetically incompetent" "shallow and shameful" with arguments "not merely juvenile but also one based on a lie . . ." amounts to"personal abuse or personal attacks" and "involves insulting or belittling" then I guess we' have different ideas of what amounts to an ad hominem argument.
Types
Abusive
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
Yes, I'm using the definition that every dictionary, as well as every person capable of using one, generally goes by.
As you can see below, (and all emphasis mine) the only thing that was attacked were your arguments:
Here's what Jay said:
Since the unwillingness to confirm definitions seems to be one of the sub-topics of this thread (not to mention the reason for it's creation), I thought all this would be worth pointing out.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Yes, I know. I was aware of my error early on when I opened the quoted link in Polyhedral's post #5. But because of our friend Jayhawker Soule's unnecessary and intemperate personal attack in post #2 I decided to egg him on a bit. In so doing I have to admit to using a few others here to keep up the pretense, and owe them an apology for my less than honest replies.
Sorry guys. :hug:
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
And when I wrote "So it turns out that what we have from you is both shallow and shameful -- an argument ad hominem that is. . . " I was referring to more than what he said in that particular post.
I see....
So basically, you decided to use that post to demonstrate something that actually applied to a different post.
Interesting strategy.
Skwim
Veteran Member
If Jayhawker Soule hadn't attacked me with the unprovoked "It implies the most juvenile and ridiculous approach to bible study imaginable." (of course it's obvious it did provoke him) I would have opened his link and seen my error. But he was obviously aching for a confrontation and I simply took him up on it, only on my terms (I didn't bother to open his link until Polyhedral reposted it). So when it came to his post, which you refer to, I was merely continuing to play our game. No big deal.
So, you didn't carefully omit, you simply chose not to mention inconvenient facts. And you see nothing wrong with this. Got it.
A juvenile argument pursued dishonestly. Again: Got it.