No we won't.We will all find out before the present 6th Day ends.
Don't need to be.Are you ready?
It's a FSM joke.You keep posting "Ramen"? Noodles?
Upvote
0
No we won't.We will all find out before the present 6th Day ends.
Don't need to be.Are you ready?
It's a FSM joke.You keep posting "Ramen"? Noodles?
Not so since God (Elohim-the Judges) or THEIR kind, is the plural name of the Godhead.
Lord God (YHWH) is the name of Jesus (God the Son) or HIS kind is the singular name of the individual (God the Son) within the Godhead.
You asked a nonsensical question, then complain when you get called on it? Perhaps, instead of complaining, you should clarify your question. Radagast took a guess at the meaning and seems to given an answer you find acceptable, but it still doesn't explain "where latin came from".I don't see such answers are given by a linguist. I can do that too.
You asked a nonsensical question, then complain when you get called on it? Perhaps, instead of complaining, you should clarify your question. Radagast took a guess at the meaning and seems to given an answer you find acceptable, but it still doesn't explain "where latin came from".
If you pick up a rock and ask "where did this rock come from" would you consider "it fell off that cliff" to be an adequate answer? If I'd known your inquiry was only that shallow I could have given the same answer as Radagast - it came from the language spoken before it. And you couldn't work that out for yourself?
Because most people, most of the time, have stayed pretty close to home and mostly only talked to people they knew already.If you are a good linguist, then you can give good answer to any layman's question, include mine.
If you ask me: "where did this rock come from?", I can give you a professional essay as an answer, instead of saying it is meaningless.
Now, here is a more general one: We know geographic barriers create dialects. However, people live in a wide plain region still have dialects. Why is that?
Because most people, most of the time, have stayed pretty close to home and mostly only talked to people they knew already.
Incorrect. YHWH refers to the whole Trinity.
Because SOME people travel. People from one tribe traveled over the river/mountain and stayed, so now there are two tribes. But guess what? If those tribes stop interacting regularly with each other their languages will change until they become quite different.Then why would two tribes separated by a river or a mountain could have the same language?
I didn't say your question was meaningless. I asked you to clarify what you were actually asking. And you got in a huff about that.If you are a good linguist, then you can give good answer to any layman's question, include mine.
If you ask me: "where did this rock come from?", I can give you a professional essay as an answer, instead of saying it is meaningless.
Because SOME people travel. People from one tribe traveled over the river/mountain and stayed, so now there are two tribes. But guess what? If those tribes stop interacting regularly with each other their languages will change until they become quite different.
Grammar. Agreement of number in particular.Doesn't compute as in the following:
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His kind, and cattle after Their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
Explain the difference between His and Their kinds.
Grammar. Agreement of number in particular.
"...the beast of the Earth after his kind..." Singular noun, singular possessive pronoun.
"...and cattle after their kind..." Plural noun, plural possessive pronoun.
Doesn't compute with this verse:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
God the Trinity created and brought forth from water all living creatures. They are Their kind....Genesis 1:21 but winged fowl were made by Jesus or His kind. Genesis 2:19 However, your's is the best argument I've seen in decades. Thanks.
Of course it computes.
1. Every living creature (multiple kinds), "their" is plural possessive.
2. Every winged fowl (one kind), "his" is singular possessive.
Aman777 said: ↑
Doesn't compute with this verse:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
1. creature is singular. (one kind)
2. IF fowl is singular. (one kind)
Especially since both are in the same sentence. Amen?
To submit that the "his" refers to Jesus when he is never first mentioned as the subject anywhere in the verse is not only poor grammar, it's patently silly.
Haven't your heard of pluralism? Who made the temporary creatures from the dust of the ground? It was Lord God Genesis 2:7 Genesis 2:19. Can you tell us the difference between God and Lord God?
It doesn't matter whether you think it computes. Cattle is a plural noun. Their is the grammatically correct plural possessive pronoun. As in,Doesn't compute with this verse:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
God the Trinity created and brought forth from water all living creatures. They are Their kind....Genesis 1:21 but winged fowl were made by Jesus or His kind. Genesis 2:19 However, your's is the best argument I've seen in decades. Thanks.
Remind us all who made Her kinds. And what language was Genesis written in.Aman777 said: ↑
Doesn't compute with this verse:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
1. creature is singular. (one kind)
2. IF fowl is singular. (one kind)
Especially since both are in the same sentence. Amen?
How is evidenced reality "speculation"?I can see that too. You really did not answer the question. What you said is a common sense speculation.
Do you think an explanation is only valid if it's full of jargon? Why do you want things to be more complicated than they need to be?I expect you would use some professional term in linguistics, or some models used in linguistics for the explanation.