I am sure it made perfect sense to others, including those having given rep points for the post.
If it is not making sense, then may I suggest you review the line of argumentation you have engaged in and read my statement within its proper context.
If you need me to break it down for you, I would be happy to do so.
You labeled an argument by another poster as a logical fallacy.
I said doing so does not make it a logical fallacy. Wrongly labeling an argument as a logical fallacy does not make it a logical fallacy.
I was saying, by implicaiton, the argument you labeled as a logical fallacy was not a logical fallacy . . I was simply trying to save some room and chose to state it more simply than this.
Of course, but if you are going to use it, and your source is called into question, then either be preared to defend it or yield and admit it is not defendable.
Simply dismissing the argument against it the way you did is a cop out.
And what makes this a valid source? What justifies this source as having any real validity?
The source I used is a true scholar and much respected for his expertise in the ancient langauges.
If you can't defend your source, then you have used your source invalidly, and your supposed "evidence" is invalid and you have proven nothing. If you yourself can't know if your source is right, then we throw out your source as a valid source of factual information.
In a court of law, such a response would immediately invalidate your witness . . . a witness is brought to bear to determine the truth of a matter. If you can't prove that the testimony of your witness is credible, then its testimony is thrown out, dismissed .. .
This is just what you said about your own source with your words above. Thank you for confirming what we have been saying about your source .. it is invalid and not credible om this matter.
When do you think these things were written? How would the author have gotten ahold of the information regarding Jonathan and David? When would that informaiton have been known? Obviously it was common enough knowledge for it to have made its way into the scriptures, so if these things meant something other than deep friendship, then it was commonly enough known and yes David would have been disqualified as King, and stoned and Jonathan too.
So, your argument falls flat just by the application of simple reason and logic.
Now, something that has not happened in this thread yet is the dismantling of the initial arguments using scriptures from 1 and 2 Samuel . . . this is because up till now, many have not been aware of tools available on the net. Blueletterbible.com has just put in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, made hundreds of years before Christ . . .this translation is extremely important for it shows us better how to understand some difficult passages (or such passage as some try to make difficult as we see here).
So, in looking at the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint side by side we see something very, VERY interestin.
Remember our discussion of AGAPE LOVe? That pure, non-sexual love?
Well . . there is something very interesting here . .
Let's look at this verse:
2Sa 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
The Hebrew word is 'ahabah.
So what Greek word was used to translated 'ahabah?
AGAPE!
If this verse was speaking of any type of sexual love, then the correct Greek word to use would have been EROS.
But this is NOT the Greek word used.
AGAPE! is the Greek word used.
CASE CLOSED.
Now let's look at another verse used, but in a different way:
1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
Now, let's look at all instances in the scripture where we find "and they kissed" . . it is quite interesting, for most include "weeping" and or obeisance (bowing) . . . .
Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exd 18:7 And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of [their] welfare; and they came into the tent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rth 1:9 The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each [of you] in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 20:37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
Now, following the logic that has been presented regarding the original verse in the OP, all of these would be speaking of homosexual relationships as well. . . .
That is patenty absurd. This shows the absurdity of insiting this verse regarding Jonathan and David means anything of the sort either . . .
That is indeed a good self description of your own posts.
.
