and you are also misrepresenting what I said about the statue of Europa, since all I said and all anybody I've quoted has said is that it's an image of "a woman riding a beast," nothing else.
Or we can look at what you actually said:
Faith writes:
Christians immediately recognize this image as "the woman who rides the beast" in the Book of Revelation
Faith writes:
Such integrity.
I expect none from you and you have never failed to meet that standard.
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
So the fact that we recognize the statue as the woman who rides the beast means to you that we see ten heads and a cup and all that. Funny, to me it just means a statue of a woman riding a beast which just because it is a woman riding a beast reminds us of the one in Revelation. But of course it MUST be what YOU think it is, not what WE think it is.
What I SAID and what you think I meant are two different things and you are merely insisting on YOUR idea of what I said and haven't the basic integrity to admit the difference.
Look, I never said and none of the people I referenced said that the statue was a replica of the creature in Revelation, it's a simple equation of a woman on a beast with that idea. The statue could be a woman riding a lion, a woman riding a dragon, a woman riding a bear, the same idea would occur to us if not to you. You can insist all you want that it SHOULD be something else but that's again just you insisting it should be something else when it's merely what I said it is. And really, that should have been obvious from the first, simple and obvious. You wouldn't make that connection but we do whether you like it or not.
quote: Look, I never said and none of the people I quoted said that the statue was a replica of the creature in Revelation, it's a simple equation of a woman on a beast with that idea.
So when you said that they "recognise" is as the woman riding a beast from Revelation, you mean that they know perfectly well that it is quite different in every other respect, but choose to make the identification regardless. I'd class that under choosing to ignore much of the Biblical description.
quote: You can insist all you want that it SHOULD be something else but that's again just you insisting it should be something else when it's merely what I said it is.
I don't insist on the statues being anything. I do suggest that people who are actually familiar with the Bible can't honestly recognise either statue as an image from Revelation because they obviously aren't.
I can concede that my wording could have been better but that doesn't give you license to insist I meant something I didn't mean. Obviously the statue immediately reminds a bunch of us of the image in Revelation and you are just getting all nitpicky about my use of the word "recognize." Is "reminds" better or do you want to pick that to death as well?
quote: I can concede that my wording could have been better but that doesn't give you license to insist I meant something I didn't mean. Obviously the statue immediately reminds a bunch of us of the image in Revelation and you are just getting all nitpicky about my use of the word "recognize." Is "reminds" better or do you want to pick that to death as well?
I can only go on what you say. I can't read your mind and decide that you meant something else. Now I can guess that people might be vaguely reminded of Revelation and yet dismiss it because of the obvious differences - and the far better match with Europa. But that isn't what you mean at all.
Still no honesty from you. How simple it would be to merely concede that I meant what I meant and not what you think I should have meant, but I guess that's just too hard for you.
What does he being a historian have anything to do with biblical interpretation?
Well if you post crap it will be pointed out to you. ABE
And you pick THAT out of three big paragraphs to complain about?
Oh the Queen of misrepresentation strikes again. You did not write "three big paragraphs". You wrote 3 tiny sentences. Two of which extolled the writing of Josephus. Everything else was cut and paste.
Number 3 is the main interpretation of most other commentators. Henry quotes Josephus, the Jewish historian in that paragraph.
Edited by Theodoric, : Pointing out more of Faiths misrepresentations
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
How simple it would be to merely concede that I meant what I meant and not what you think I should have meant, but I guess that's just too hard for you.
I can't read your mind so I'll go by what you wrote:
quote:Christians immediately recognize this image as "the woman who rides the beast" in the Book of Revelation
Faith writes:
...all I said and all anybody I've quoted has said is that it's an image of "a woman riding a beast," nothing else.
What you wrote was a lie. That makes you a liar.
If it was just a case of it being "mis-wrote" then you would have simply corrected it. Instead you blamed me: "But of course it MUST be what YOU think it is, not what WE think it is." That is not you admitting a mistake - that is you trying to hide the fact that you got caught lying.
If your god likes liars then he must fucking love you!
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)