I didn't say you called me unlearned, I said you implied I was unlearned. And you did, by telling me the unlearned twist Scripture and accusing me of twisting Scripture.
Concerning Columbus, you said most common people believed the earth was flat in his day. I said that wasn't true. The only reference you provided was that there exists old, flat maps with drawings of water going off the edges. I pointed out maps like that are still made today, so that proves nothing. I'll point out, that according to Jeffrey Burton Russell, Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, (practically) "no one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat." see
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html
Again, I'm going to have to go with my reference of yours... as "unlearned" as that might make me seem.
I don't have to prove my statement that history books claim the female ovum was discovered in 1828. I've cited two medical history books already. YOu have cited none. The ball is now in your court, yet all you do is tell me I need to cite every medical history book that exists in every language known to man. At this point, you would make yourself look a lot better if you would just put away your pride, admit you were wrong about Columbus, and admit you were wrong about the Hebrews knowing what an egg was "because teenagers know."
I have not ignored your claims that "seed" in reference to a woman refers to an egg. I have cited several reasons why "seed" does not refer to the egg.
1) The Hebrew and Greek concordances define the word as "sperm" and as "seed", not "ovum". So when the Bible says she conceived seed or became pregnant by seed, it is referring to her becoming pregnant via sperm.
2) Verses that say "your seed will number more then the sand on the seashore" are referring to her decedents... not billions of ovums. The female body makes a very limited number of ovums. The verse in Genesis that says her seed will crush the serpent is translated "her offspring" in the NIV, which is in line with the understanding that female "seed" refers to children, not to ovum.
You are not telling the truth about "never using those verses" about being known in the womb, which is sad, since you are supposedly a "moderator" in this discussion. Post number 69. You relied on Psalm 139 saying a person was known in the womb... the very verses I have said should not be used to show life starts at conception since other verses say a person was known before being conceived. Now here you say you never used such verses.
You are one who does not tell the truth, and you are playing games here. Concerning the human egg being discovered in 1828, you unashamedly deny the history which all medical history books that we have seen claim as fact, and you refuse to cite even one history book or encyclopedia in your defense. Instead you say I have to prove that every history book *ever written* agrees with the two I have already cited... as if the names of every history book ever written could even fit on this server.
You refuse to cite references about your claims concerning Columbus, but that is unrelated to this discussion. The fact is, I have cited numerous published books of history and distinguished professors. You refuse to cite a single published historical reference, and you also refuse to tell the truth about what you have said in previous posts. You are playing games, it is obvious at this point.
When even the moderator refuses to engage in discussion and resorts to game playing the pursuit of mutual knowledge becomes a waste of time. It is sad that the telling of un-truths and and ridiculous game playing are tolerated in the moderation of this board.
I am through with this topic and will be off the board for a while preparing for final exams. I'm sure DHK will have fun "abolishing" my arguments in my absence. However, the last few pages speak for themselves.
I have truly not intended to offend anyone with this sensitive topic, however I do believe the Church should have Biblical support for every stand it takes. Good-bye and God bless,
jsn9333
DHK said:
1. Don't take it as a compliment.
2. Don't automatically assume that I called you unlearned.
What the Bible says is that you are unlearned in the Word and you "wrest the Scriptures", that is twist them to your own benefit, and thus your own destruction. It is the Word of God that you are playing with, and possibly to your own destruction. I am not implying that in other fields of knowledge you are ignorant, but in Biblical areas you have proved yourself to be unlearned, as the Bible says. You refuse to take Godly counsel of others. It is not a compliment.
You have no authority to make such a claim; for you have no way to document it; no way to prove it. I challenge you to prove your statement. I am waiting for the documentation. This ought to be good. In order for you to document it, I want to see every medical book in every language before 1828 and that would include common dictionaries and encyclopedias--anything that would shed light on the word "ovum." Document your claim or shut up about it! If you can't prove it then keep quiet.
Your misinformation about Columbus puts you in the boat of absurd historical ignorance. You are not the one to talk.
I and many others have given it to you many times, but you refuse. You refuse it whether it is given in English or in Hebrew or in Greek. You refuse simple logic.
You admit that the Greek word seed, spermata, is sperm.
Yet you won't admit that the "seed" of the woman could refer to the egg. For Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Christ. She was a virgin. What sperm was used? What was the seed referring to? It was Mary's seed. Mary's seed was Christ. It obviously had to refer to the ovum of Mary, not the sperm of Mary. But Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Mary's egg was fertilized by God himself. There is your proof. Even Isaiah said it: A virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son.
But no matter how many times we give you this evidence you will not believe.
I never used those verses. Verses speaking of God's omniscience I am not concerned with. I didn't use them.
You are the one that must prove the universal negatives to me. Have fun!
