🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 4, 10:06�pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 7:13 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Aug 3, 8:57 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 3, 4:30 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 8:54 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> in alt.atheism:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:23?pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the writer of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people today
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child".
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so feeble
> >>>>>>>>>>> minded that he would have believed there was something other than a
> >>>>>>>>>>> child in the womb of a pregnant woman. ? Nothing he wrote would
> >>>>>>>>>>> indicate that he was feeble minded.
> >>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not saying that at all.
> >>>>>>>>> Well, you absolutely are. You regard me as so stupid that you think
> >>>>>>>>> you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in her
> >>>>>>>>> womb. Why would you treat Luke any different?
> >>>>>>>> Once again, you misrepresent the discussion.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> The discussion was whether a pregnant woman has a child in her womb.
> >>>>>>> You claimed she did not.
> >>>>>> There is a fetus in the womb from 9 weeks from conception to birth.
> >>>>>> Prior to 9 weeks, there isn't even a fetus.
> >>>>>> Did you parents ever teach you about the birds and the bees? (Hint: It
> >>>>>> has nothing to do with avians or insects.)
> >>>>> I was taught from the time I was born that a pregnant woman has a
> >>>>> child inside her.
> >>>> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you were taught wrong.
> >>>> --
> >>> You are saying that my mother was lying to me about my younger
> >>> brothers and sisters?
> >> No. She was taught wrong, too, if she claimed that she had children in
> >> her womb.
>
> > Well, she was taught from the Bible. �The Bible says,
>
> > 4 �And Joseph also went up ...........
> > 5 �To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
>
> That's one translation.
>
> Another translation is:
> "He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to
> him and was expecting a child."
>
> If there were a child, why would they be expecting? �It's already there.
>
> In another translation:
> "To be enrolled with Mary, his espoused wife, who was about to become a
> mother."
>
> In another translation:
> "He took with him Mary, his fianc�e, who was now obviously pregnant."
>
Well, the church I belong to does not accept some of these atheistic
translations.  Espoused wife does not mean fiancee.
Robert B. Winn