Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!
Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!
|
Quote:
Does these mean I can't tell my wife or children I love them? It says not love in word??
Do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to speaking & ornamentation??????????? Get real......
|
Oh, so NOW context matters. So we can't just apply an across-the-board rule that the "not with" phrase brings meaning to the text, but that context is important here? You just contradicted your own rebuttal. Your rebuttal to me as I offered an explanation of the "not this, but this" language, was indeed, the "fallacy of equivocation." Glad you knew what that was
You see, you never said the content had to make a lick of difference. You were claiming that "not with" is clear and plain and refused to consider anything further on the matter. So which is it rdp?
Threaded Mode
