🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> 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.

............atheistic translations?!

BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!!

-- 
****************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226          *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it?                                    *
****************************************************