My Oryctolagus Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Let's put that verse in context and see what we get, shall we?

All of a sudden, you're worried about context?

Apparently women don't walk upright. That's quite an invention, AV.

Cute.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All of a sudden, you're worried about context?

Nothing sudden about it. But it is sad that you need to stoop so low to try to make a non-point. Somebody who knows their Bible as well as you do shouldn't have to resort to quote mining it. If the Bible is silent on a certain issue why not just let it remain silent instead of abusing it? Do you really think God likes you misrepresenting his inspired words?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you really think God likes you misrepresenting his inspired words?

I'll answer to God for what I say or don't say on the Internet.

I don't see why that passage can't be interpreted both ways.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll answer to God for what I say or don't say on the Internet.

I don't see why that passage can't be interpreted both ways.

Because you're reading in to something that it doesn't say.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't see why that passage can't be interpreted both ways.

If you think it's reasonable to say that the passage means that, physically, men walk upright but women don't then who am I to argue? Maybe where you live that's the case, but in the rest of the world it's not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you're reading in to something that it doesn't say.

You mean like this:

If you think it's reasonable to say that the passage means that, physically, men walk upright but women don't then who am I to argue?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean like this:

He's just doing the same thing you have a repeated history of doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's just doing the same thing you have a repeated history of doing.

And he's just as entitled to do so, as I am to disagree with it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

He's just doing the same thing you have a repeated history of doing.

Huh? You do realise I'm saying that AV is twisting the Bible and he is now twisting what I've said? He's a class act!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And he's just as entitled to do so, as I am to disagree with it.

Yeah but he doesn't act like he's the only one who has the 'True' Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Huh? You do realise I'm saying that AV is twisting the Bible and he is now twisting what I've said? He's a class act!

Yeah I know. Although yours is more of twisting it in the right direction rather than he is.

 

[lesliedellow]

Please note that the one's who considered it problematic when they first saw and examine it were your evolutionist scientists not me. They even thought it was some type of a joke and searched for evidence of stitching of parts together because they initially fount it a very perplexing specimen in the evolutionary sense. After all, it has a duck like bill and webbed feet and lays eggs, which would be more appropriate to birds and reptiles while sporting a coat of fur with a beaver-like tail typical of mammals. It is also venomous which is rare among mammals



But once they got over the initial shock they immediately set to work and fit it right in.

.

Excuse me, but Darwin hadn't even been born in 1798, and there certainly wasn't a fully worked out family tree of species for the platypus to be fitted into.

Creationists just stumble from one specious argument to another.