Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 241 of 473 (500677)
03-01-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Peg
02-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
quote:
Wind is something that he would not have seen though...no one can see wind, so in this verse wind is obviously representative of something else.
It would make no sense that he saw 4 literal corners, but no literal wind and yet say that the saw both...therefore neither of them can be literal. Both must be symbolic or metaphorical.
Nonsense. One cannot see wind but its effects can be clearly seen. It is perfectly possible to have a mental image of wind. Think of trees being blown about (something that is mentioned in the verse in question). Perhaps the vision involved the angels' wings being blown and buffeted. I do not see this as any kind of serious objection.
quote:
When you look at the Hebrew words used, you see that its not a literal beating out of some solid celestial vault becasue the word 'skies' here comes from a word (sha`chaq) also rendered 'film of dust' or 'clouds' (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11), and in view of the nebulous quality of that which is ‘beaten out,’ it is clear that the Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror which gives off a bright reflection.
But the basic meaning of shachaq is the sky and that is the sense in which it is being employed here. Are you really trying to argue that this verse is implying that the sky is insubstantial? It isn't. It is stating quite clearly that the sky is hard. The etymology of one word does not alter this obvious fact. There is only one natural reading here and it is of a hard sky.
By the way, if you want to talk etymology, raqa is etymologically related to riqqua which means "beating out" as per a brass bowl, as per the brass mirror mentioned here. The context is clear; the sky is as hard as brass. I have no idea why you are so keen to change what the Bible says. If you don't like it you can always go write your own holy book.
quote:
well the quote in Jude says that 'Enoch prophecied concerning all the ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way'
Yes. He then goes on to quote directly from the Book of Enoch! The translation even uses quotation marks.
quote:
Enoch was a real person, but the Apocrypral book of Enoch was not written by him. It was written in 2-1BCE. This means that the knowlege of Enochs prophecies was most likely handed down thru oral tradition as i said, otherwise any made up story coming on the scene would have been laughed out of town.
There's no evidence at all to show that Enoch was real. He was almost certainly a fictional character, so no, he did not write his own lines. I never said that he did. So no prophecy was handed down. The fact is that the quote in Jude is almost word for word from 1 Enoch. It is obvious that it is quoting 1 Enoch. The only reason why you want to deny this is so that you can disassociate your favourite holy book from its embarrassing cousin.
quote:
The only answer is that they knew of enochs prophecies via word of mouth tradition.
The only answer? So it is somehow impossible for the Jude author(s) to have read Enoch? How exactly do you work this out? Answer; you haven't worked it out. you have just found this idea convenient.
Peg writes:
Granny writes:
The simple truth of the matter is that the Bible's scattered comments on cosmology are completely consistent with 1 Enoch. I asked Black this before, I will now ask you; are there any Bible verses that explicitly contradict an Enochian cosmology?
From Wiki 'the Astronomical book describes a Solar calendar that was later described also in the Book of Jubilees and that was used by the Dead Sea sect. The use of this calendar made impossible to celebrate the feasts in the same days of the Temple of Jerusalem.'
Nice try at dodging the question. I'll ask again.
Are there any Bible verses that explicitly contradict an Enochian cosmology? The answer is either yes or no. Which is it?
quote:
And so my conclusion to your question is that because the book of Enoch was written by a break away of the Jewish religion, its flat earth teachings cannot be connected in anyway with the bible.
Your whole religion is a breakaway Jewish sect Peg! You might as well say that because the belief in Christ is part of a breakaway Jewish sect, it is not part of the Bible!
The Book of Enoch provides us with a view of how people understood the cosmos at the time it was written. Denying this is pointless. I do not recognise the distinction that you make between inspired and non-inspired texts, so you are wasting your time with me on this line of argument.
quote:
They may have been influenced by greek philosophy.
No they couldn't. By the time Enoch was written, the Greeks had long known of the spherical Earth. It was influenced by Jewish cosmology, which had followed after Babylonian and other Near Eastern myths.
quote:
They may also have carried over some of the oral teachings of the jewish system and so the information about the historical person 'Enoch' could very well have been common knowlege among the jews and if so explains why Jude could rightly use it in his writing.
That does not explain how the two texts are so very closely worded. This similarity would be very unlikely in the case of an oral tradition.
quote:
Keeping in mind that the book of Enoch was written centuries after the rest of the bible, Jude may not have been copying from the Dead Sea Sect at all...they were likely copying from the jewish religion.
Totally false. 1 Enoch was written from about 300BCE to around the time of the New Testament.
Robert J. Schadewald writes:
Numerous manuscripts of 1 Enoch have since been found in Ethiopian monasteries. Turn of the century scholars concluded that parts of the book are pre-Maccabean, and most (perhaps all) of it was composed by 100 B.C.
Wikipedia writes:
According to Western scholars its older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BC and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of 1st century BC[4]; It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction
Do you get that?
By the way, I am not suggesting that the Jude author was quoting from the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was quoting from the Book of Enoch itself. The actual copy used is not relevant.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Peg, posted 02-28-2009 7:27 AM Peg has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 242 of 473 (500678)
03-01-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by ICANT
02-28-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Re Flat Earth
ICANT, would it amaze you to hear that I'm not interested in your loopy interpretations? Because I'm not.
ICANT writes:
Granny writes:
There is no such object as the Orion constellation.
Really.
Yes really! Do you know what a constellation is? It is merely a pretty picture drawn in the sky, using the stars to play join-the-dots. IT is not an actual object. It is not a place. You can't go to the Orion constellation in a spaceship. The stars that make it up are light years apart and have no connection to each other, besides the fanciful sky-pictures made here on Earth.
The Bible is spouting ridiculous and ignorant nonsense when it talks about the "bonds of Orion" It is totally wrong. It demonstrates that they had a very poor understanding of cosmology.
quote:
Why don't you edit wikipedia to display the proper way to approach Orion then?
Why don't you try reading the damn page you linked to? Then you might try reading the page on constellations.
Wikipedia writes:
Constellations are normally the product of human perception rather than astronomical realities. The stars in a constellation or asterism rarely have any astrophysical relationship to each other; they just happen to appear close together in the sky as viewed from Earth and typically lie many light years apart in space.
Okay? Orion is just a pretty picture. It has no objective reality.
From this point on you just descend into rambling nonsense. Since ICANTism is yet to take hold as a major world religion, I am content to leave you to believe whatever you like. I think that anyone reading this can judge for them self how accurate your reading of Genesis is. I have no interest in debating your personal lunatic delusions. I will say this though;
quote:
So you stand on your stump and proclaim your gospel all you want.
I love the way you turn the word "Gospel" into a pejorative term! You of course, would never engage in such foolishness.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2009 4:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2009 12:39 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 248 by Peg, posted 03-02-2009 3:44 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 243 of 473 (500684)
03-01-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Granny Magda
03-01-2009 9:00 AM


Re Flat Earth
Hi GM,
So any things that you don't agree with is just dismissed like the questions I asked in Message 232 which got no reply at all.
You are the one who keeps telling us what the Bible says so, why not answer the questions?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-01-2009 9:00 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Granny Magda, posted 03-01-2009 1:13 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 244 of 473 (500686)
03-01-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICANT
03-01-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Re Flat Earth
quote:
So any things that you don't agree with is just dismissed like the questions I asked in Re Flat Earth (Message 232) which got no reply at all.
No, it's you I'm dismissing. I have no interest in discussing your half-baked and manifestly wrong theories about Genesis; they're not relevant and they're not on topic. They are also unique to you, which means that I really don't have any percentage in debating them.
So far as I'm concerned, nothing you have posted in this thread which deserves or requires a reply and I intend to ignore you for the rest of the thread. Okay?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2009 12:39 PM ICANT has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 245 of 473 (500700)
03-01-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Granny Magda
02-14-2009 1:28 PM


quote:
It is my contention that there are many Biblical verses that imply a flat Earth and that the writers of much of the Old and New Testaments considered the Earth to be flat.
Flat Earth cosmology was common in the ancient world. The Babylonians, Egyptians and pre-Classical Greeks all believed the earth to be flat. The Babylonians in particular viewed the Earth as a flat disc floating on a great ocean. I believe that this kind of cosmology was, at the very least, a profound influence on the Bible.
It seems that the Bible authors viewed the world as being flat, probably disc-like, with a dome above it and resting upon it, which was the sky. They viewed the earth as fixed and immobile, resting upon pillars or foundations.
I just skimmed all 17 pages of posts, and would like to present a "middle position" which will probably upset everyone here :-)
I believe that Granny (and Chiroptera) make a strong case, and I agree with their data. The neighboring cultures beleived that the earth was flat with a solid dome above it, and the Hebrews probably shared this perspective.
However, this doesn't mean that the Bible is "wrong" or that it is teaching error. It means that the biblical authors were normal people, fallible and imperfect. God accommodated His message to the language and culture of the day. If He had first taught the biblical authors about the Big Bang and had them express theology in this language, their audience would not have understood what they were talking about. It was necessary to use the cultural imagery of the day to be understood. Neither God nor the human authors were trying to TEACH cosmology with this language; they were trying to TEACH theology in a way that the people would understand.
Some Evangelical scholars have done good work on this topic. For those of you who have access to scholarly theological journals, check out these papers by Paul Seely:
Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above: Part I: The Meaning of raqia' in Gen 1:6-8," Westminster Theological Journal 53(1991):227-240.
Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above: Part II: The Meaning of 'The Water above the Firmament' in Gen 1:6-8," Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992):31-46.
Paul H. Seely, "The Geographical Meaning of `Earth' and `Seas' in Genesis 1:10," Westminster Theological Journal 59(1997):231-55.
and there's a new book that looks very good (I haven't read it yet):
John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Baker, 2006).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Granny Magda, posted 02-14-2009 1:28 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Taz, posted 03-02-2009 2:00 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 249 by Peg, posted 03-02-2009 3:57 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:29 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 246 of 473 (500712)
03-02-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by kbertsche
03-01-2009 9:19 PM


kbertsche writes:
It means that the biblical authors were normal people, fallible and imperfect.
You forgot the part where the almighty judeo-christian god is the author of the bible. It's suppose to be perfect... or so I've been led to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 9:19 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Black, posted 03-02-2009 4:00 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 251 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 6:54 AM Taz has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 247 of 473 (500715)
03-02-2009 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by shalamabobbi
02-28-2009 6:38 PM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
shalamabobbi writes:
But are it's flat earth teachings the point upon which they broke away?
it does have similarities which isnt surprising seeing they were an offshoot of the jewish faith. Such as the ressurection from the dead, the destruction of sheol and hell, the righteous one taking possession of the earth for eternal life on it, the Messiah is spoken of...the kings of the earth are to be destroyed by God and his own kingdom is to rule earth
But there are many things that are contrary to the bible
It teaches that Noah was a son of an angel in the 'fragment of book of Noah'
It names the angels Raphael and Phanuel who are not mentioned in any bible account.
They were of the conviction that the whole course of the world, the history of nations, and of every single individual, was in every respect predetermined by God...this is not a biblical concept at all
The number of the archangels is said to be 7 whereas the bible says there is only 1 archangel.
Sin was said to be the result of the he fallen angels whereas the bible clearly states that Adam & Eve were the cause of sin.
so its certainly contrary to the bible on some pretty major teachings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:38 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 248 of 473 (500716)
03-02-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Granny Magda
03-01-2009 9:00 AM


Re: Re Flat Earth
GM writes:
Yes really! Do you know what a constellation is? It is merely a pretty picture drawn in the sky, using the stars to play join-the-dots. IT is not an actual object. It is not a place. You can't go to the Orion constellation in a spaceship. The stars that make it up are light years apart and have no connection to each other, besides the fanciful sky-pictures made here on Earth.
i'll be sure to send a letter to the australian govt and tell them that the southern cross is non existent and they can stop using it on their flag now LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-01-2009 9:00 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:38 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 249 of 473 (500717)
03-02-2009 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by kbertsche
03-01-2009 9:19 PM


kbertsche writes:
Neither God nor the human authors were trying to TEACH cosmology with this language; they were trying to TEACH theology in a way that the people would understand.
Here Here!
I hope this very succinct point does not fall on deaf ears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 9:19 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Black
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 77
Joined: 11-28-2008


Message 250 of 473 (500718)
03-02-2009 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Taz
03-02-2009 2:00 AM


Taz,
It is an interpretation of man that the Bible is perfect just like it is also an interpretation of man that the Bible is not perfect.
Edited by Black, : edit
Edited by Black, : edit
Edited by Black, : edit
Edited by Black, : edit
Edited by Black, : edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Taz, posted 03-02-2009 2:00 AM Taz has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 251 of 473 (500723)
03-02-2009 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Taz
03-02-2009 2:00 AM


quote:
You forgot the part where the almighty judeo-christian god is the author of the bible. It's suppose to be perfect... or so I've been led to believe.
Yes, according to orthodox Christian theology, the Bible is perfect, as Jesus is perfect. Jesus is both fully God and fully man. The Bible's origin is both fully divine and fully human. The Bible does not TEACH error; in this sense it is "perfect". But the Bible expresses divine truth in fallible, human, culturally limited language. In our cultural context, some of these expressions and assumptions may seem to be "wrong". But they are not being TAUGHT; they are just the cultural backdrop through which God revealed theological truth.
I haven't read it, but I like the title of a recent book by Kenton L. Sparks, "God's Word in Human Words". That's the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Taz, posted 03-02-2009 2:00 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Taz, posted 03-02-2009 4:36 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 252 of 473 (500741)
03-02-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by kbertsche
03-01-2009 9:19 PM


Inspired Scripture and Error
Thanks kbertsche.
quote:
However, this doesn't mean that the Bible is "wrong" or that it is teaching error.
It is wrong though. You may have decided that God had good reason to describe the Earth this way, but it still doesn't make a claim like "the Earth is immovable" correct. That is just plain wrong, however you frame it. If it is not a mistake, it must be a lie, even if it is only a white lie. In practise, as long as people go on teaching Biblical literalism, they will be teaching errors straight out of the Bible. Non-literal interpretations are much less troublesome.
quote:
It means that the biblical authors were normal people, fallible and imperfect. God accommodated His message to the language and culture of the day. If He had first taught the biblical authors about the Big Bang and had them express theology in this language, their audience would not have understood what they were talking about. It was necessary to use the cultural imagery of the day to be understood.
Yes, this strikes me as being quite sensible. Sensible that is, by the standards of religious belief in general!
It does have its flaws though. Why is it necessary for God to alter the facts to make himself understood? He is God isn't he? Is explaining the truth somehow beyond him? Bronze Age and Iron Age people were not stupid. They were just as capable of understanding a spherical Earth as anyone alive today. All that they would have needed was to be told and shown evidence. If God is genuinely taking this role of a cosmic messenger, I see no reason why he would need to teach falsehoods such as the Genesis creation story. Could he not find true incidents with which to teach us theology? And doesn't this mean that God is lying to us?
Further, when this kind of loose interpretation is employed, it must affect the way we read the rest of the Bible. The historical side of the texts for instance; now we know that Biblical cosmology is divorced from reality, why should we take the history at face value? Is, for example, Exodus merely a parable designed to teach us theology? I would say that it was very definitely intended to teach us history, but despite the fact that many people still cling on to its supposed historicity, Exodus is far less troublesome if one interprets it as simply a parable. You can't have your cake and eat it. Something cannot be both true and false. Either the Bible is infallible or it is open to error and if it is open to error, the whole thing must be viewed critically, not just obvious inconveniences like the flat earth.
Does the following not make more sense? The authors were inspired by their belief in the divine. There were no explicit divine revelations, no communiques from God, the authors simply did their best to express their understanding of the divine and of the world around them. This is why the texts contain mistakes. Note that this version of events does not exclude the possibility of God inspiring the texts, it just moves him to a bit more of a "hands off" role, telling the authors "write" but not "write this...". What is the problem with this theory?
quote:
Neither God nor the human authors were trying to TEACH cosmology with this language; they were trying to TEACH theology in a way that the people would understand.
I can only partially agree with this. It is certainly beyond debate that teaching cosmology is not the Bible's raison d'etre. There is little direct mention of it. However, there is still the Genesis creation myth. This section at least, does seem to be intended to teach us how the universe began, at least that is part of its intent.
In Jewish writing, the text is usually intended to be read from multiple viewpoints. In the case of Genesis I suspect that it was intended to be taken literally and symbolically. Trying to shoehorn the Bible, especially the OT, into only one viewpoint is always going to be misleading.
For most of the texts upon which I have been relying though, there does not seem to be any intent of teaching cosmology. They are mostly passing references. I never claimed that they were explicitly intended to teach cosmology. Indeed, most of them seem to simply assume that the reader is already familiar with concepts like an immovable Earth or the four winds, etc. Nonetheless, they do provide an interesting picture of Jewish thought at the time.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 9:19 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 3:35 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 263 by Peg, posted 03-04-2009 2:17 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 253 of 473 (500742)
03-02-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Peg
03-02-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Re Flat Earth
quote:
i'll be sure to send a letter to the australian govt and tell them that the southern cross is non existent and they can stop using it on their flag now LOL
You can make as many sarcatic remarks as you like Peg. You are not going to change the fact that the verses you brought up to show that ancient Hebrews had an advanced understanding of astronomy prove the opposite to be the case.
Where are the "bonds of Orion"? What are they? Why is the Bible talking about Orion as if it were a single entity, bound together? How can it be bound when its stars are light years apart and not directly associated with one another?
The obvious answer is that the authors in question had only a facile knowledge of the heavens. They understood how the skies looked but not how they actually were. In other words, the text speaks in the voice of its ignorant authors, not that of an all knowing God.
quote:
Here Here!
I hope this very succinct point does not fall on deaf ears
Absolutely. This point is correct insofar as it goes. But an error mentioned in passing is still an error. If I were to mention, as an aside, that 1+1=3, it would still be wrong. It would be a more serious error if I stood up in front of a class of schoolchildren and taught them that 1+1=3, but that does not absolve the passing error.
Whether they are intended as direct teachings or not, the passages I have been quoting still give us an insight into what the Bible authors believed. That is all I have been trying to demonstrate throughout this thread.
An error mentioned in passing may not be the most serious of errors, but it is still a deathblow to Biblical inerrancy.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Peg, posted 03-02-2009 3:44 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 12:31 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 254 of 473 (500773)
03-02-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 10:38 AM


Here Here
An error mentioned in passing may not be the most serious of errors, but it is still a deathblow to Biblical inerrancy.
Here Here!* I hope this very succinct point does not fall on deaf ears.
AbE: *Thank you, Catholic Scientist, for the correction, but I was mimicking Peg in Message 249. Where imitation is the sincerest form of flattery it's also good as subtle mockery.
Edited by lyx2no, : Per Catholic Scientist in his reply 255..

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:38 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 12:51 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 264 by Peg, posted 03-04-2009 2:22 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 473 (500777)
03-02-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by lyx2no
03-02-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Here Here
Here Here!
Where? Where?
I think the expression you're looking for is:
Hear! Hear!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 12:31 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024